Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout081908 Cell TowersCommunication Towers City Council Briefing August 19, 2008 This briefing will cover: What’s different from the current ordinance? What has changed since the July 8 meeting? Frequently asked questions (FAQ) FCC Petition What’s different from the current ordinance? ? Pre-application conference -all aspects of application discussed, incl. feasibility of camouflaging tower ? New application requirements: -intermodulation study/microwave path buffer map -if within ¼mile of res. or apt. district or use, balloon tests, simulated photos, etc. to assess visual impact -summary of contacts with residents “Slick Stick”Tower, Witchduck Road Cell Tower in Atlanta, Ga. What’s different from the current ordinance, con’t ?Standards for grant or denial by Council: -availability of alternative sites -co-location capacity of proposed tower -potential for interference with public safety sites -applicant’s written agreement to allow co- location on commercially reasonable terms What’s different from the current ordinance, con’t ? Public safety communications facilities: - no private facilities where there is a substantial possibility of interference with public safety communications facilities that cannot be mitigated ?Water tanks: -no private facilities unless there is a demonstrable need and no reasonable alternative site is available Blackwater Fire Station Water Tank, Chantry Drive Antennas, Chantry Drive Water Tower Sandbridge Road Water Tank (potential site) What’s different from the current ordinance, con’t ? Towers not used for 1 year must be removed within 90 days after notification & if owner doesn’t, City may do so and charge cost to owner ? Communication towers on electric transmission line structures allowed by right if criteria in ordinance are met; otherwise by CUP ? Communication towers not allowed on certain property zoned P-1 Wireless equipment on electric transmission structure (between Princess Anne Road and Dam Neck Road) Detail from previous photograph Wireless equipment on electric transmission structure (Indian River Road) What has changed since the July 8 meeting? ?Setbacks from residential structures changed back to 125% of tower height (same as in current ordinance) - Council may increase or decrease setbacks when appropriate ?Removed CUPs for building-mounted antennas that do not meet criteria -All BMAsmust meet criteria in Sec. 207 (same as in current ordinance) What has changed since the July 8 meeting, con’t ?Towers NOT ALLOWED on property zoned P-1 that is set aside for preservation in its natural state or that was zoned P-1 as part of a rezoning or CUP that allowed development on adjacent property -Allowed in other P-1 areas with CUP (e.g., neighborhood parks, golf courses, etc) Stumpy Lake (prohibited P-1) Sandbridge Road (prohibited P-1) Bow Creek Golf Course (eligible with CUP) Frequently Asked Questions Is the proposed ordinance less restrictive than the Q. current one? A.The only lessrestrictive thing about the proposed version is that it allows communication towers to be built on existing electric transmission towers without a CUP under certain conditions. Other provisions are more restrictive (e.g. P-1, application requirements, removal of unused towers) FAQs, con’t Q.Why is there no limit on the number of antenna arrays that can be put on a tower? A.The object of the ordinance is to keep the number of communication towers to a minimum, consistent with the needs of the community. The best way is to require that providers share space on one tower; more antennas on one tower means fewer towers. Also, there is a physical limit (weight, height) to the amount of equipment that each tower will hold, anyway FAQs, con’t Q.Why is there no limit on the number of towers that may be located on a site? A.Because, with one exception (electric transmission line structures), any communication tower requires a CUP from the City Council, and limiting the number of towers would unduly restrict the City Council’s discretion. Some sites may be suitable for two or three towers; some not at all. FAQs, con’t Q.Does the proposed ordinance adversely affect the ability of the public to participate in the CUP process? A.No. To the contrary, applications for communication towers to be located within ¼mile of any residential or apartment zoning district or use have special requirements intended to provide pertinent information that is available to the public at an earlier stage of the process than under the current ordinance. FCC Petition The FCC is considering a petition filed by the International Association for the Wireless Industry (CTIA) asking the FCC to: ?Impose a 45-day “shot clock”for co-location requests, 75 days for new communication towers. If no action is taken by locality within those limits, application is deemed approved; ?Alternatively, applicant is entitled to an injunction unless locality proves that delay is justified; FCC Update, con’t ?Declare that localities may not deny an application for a communication tower on the basis that another provider provides service at that location; and ?Localities may not automatically require a wireless service provider to obtain a “variance”before siting facilities.