6.15. SR 05-19-1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

11 ~992 1993 1994~ 1995 2000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 2S.000 30.000 35.000 ..I s¢,gmcnt Ol'a mtlp i, a hypotheticrtl cit~, [left] shows where ccll sites ,li.ghl bc placed if no,e of tile 10 corriers will co- loc'ntt. Above: The ~lt~her of people Itsi~lg cclhtlar devices is cxpected to explode within tile ,ext few years. land solves two problems: Local govern- ments can choose the best locations for wireless facilities, and applicants can get in and out-of the permitting process quickly. New co~mpar~ies have popped up to mar- ket these public lands and to direct the zarriers to 'easy~ city and county sites. The pi:oblem is that the wireless firms often insist on an ~xclusive arrangement with the community, in effect tying up access to public land--and exposing the community to potential legal challenges. Further, private landowners may object to the competition from a public body. An alternative approach is to require all ceil sites to be located on land owned or leased by the jurisdiction. Ringwood, New Jersey, is trying that, although it has only three publicly owned sites that qualifT. The suburban Passaic County commu- nity has also offered to lease land from private landowners seeking a cell site and then to sublease the site to a wireless carrier. A wireless master plan is another way to go. The town of Windsor, Connecticut, is considering the preparation of such a plan for the area between Hartford and Bradley International Airport. Also, the Mid-America Regional Council, which encompasses eight counties and 114 mu- nicipal/ties in two states around Kansas City., has begun a two-phase process that could lead to a regional wireless master plan. The master plan approach involves two steps. The first is to approve the areas where celt facilities could be located. The second step is to review individual site applications. A more stringent review would be required for propertie~ not iden- tified in the master plan..A twa'step ap- proach has the advantage of.7~i'ssuring public input at an early stage. Because it requires a map, it is also th{';only ap- proach that ensures some degr'~e of cer- tainty. ~' Given all the options, I would say ihat the wireless master plan is the tool of choice. At this writing, only a few cities and counties are exploring the master plan approach, so there is no model to follow. But carriers are bound to tire of the ad hoc approach of siting one cell facility at a time. I predict that they will soon request the certainty that comes with a wireless master plan. The courts are also pointing the way. There have been four important court cases on wireless planning so far,'and there are sure to be many more. Earlier this year, a federal court upheld a six- month moratorium imposed by the city of Medina, Washington. Sprint Spectrum had asked for a preliminary, injunction to override the moratorium, which Medina argued it needed to give it time to plan for cell sites. But another federal court up- held the contention of BellSouth Mobil- ity that Gwinnett Count, Georgia, had not presented sufficient evidence to sup- port its denial of a permit. Meanwhile, a group of residents in Franklin County, Texas, won a tempo- rary injunction against construction of a multicarrier tower, which they argued would impair their quality of life and diminish property values. Franklin County government officials, community lead- ers. industry representatives, and other interested parties. The topics include wire- less communications; the types of facili- ties needed; the method used to select possible sites: how the permitting pro- cess works; and health issues and prop- ertv values. AT&T Wireless Services has hel~t such gatherings in Boston, New York, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., and sev- eral other jurisdictions. Local governments should also review their land-use legislation to be sure that it coincides with the provisions of the tele- communications act. Other elements that jurisdictions should consider are: use by right in industrial and commercial zones; a hearing process for residential areas; specific, as opposed to qualitative, re- view standards; fixed time frames for permit processing; and separation of the has not r~quired permits for tower con- struction)In Pennsylvania,. the state court of appeals denied Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems' claim.that a 150-foot cellular tower was an essential service that should be permitted as of right. The courts are a bellwether of what's ahead for planners. It's clear that plan- ning is needed: So is a factual record and a review process. Ted Krefnes, AICP I'h'eines is president of Kreines & Kreines in Tiburon, California. The firm specializes in wireless planning. Terms of Art Applicants The people and compa- nies that apply for personal wireless fa- cilities: site acquisition representatives, lawyers, cell site builders, landowners, and others.. Be aware that some appli- cants seek approval of cell sites and then sell or lease them to the carriers or land- owners' they represent. · Carriers Companies licensed by the FCC to build personal wireless facilities and operate personal wireless services. There are also unlicensed carriers. Personal wireless facilities Described in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as facilities for the provision of personal wireless services. Personal wireless services Commer- cial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services.