Laserfiche WebLink
((())) <br /> <br />KEY ELEM OF A CELLU TOWER ORDINANCE <br /> <br />A local government notrmlly tma in place a general zoning <br />e~inance which ic periodically reviews and ~ev~ in light <br />societal, te~mological, and other e,.lq~ges. Foltowing th~ <br />dereguIation of the relecommtmkations inclustry by the <br />Telecommunications Act of 1996, communities across the <br />United States witn_~_,~4~ a dramatic increase in wireless <br />facilkies application~ <br /> <br />Many cities and counties fmmcl themseDes without an <br />adequate framework to deal with these rapidly proliferating <br />tectmologi~ In some places, local governments were ~er <br />prepared because the emrly grow-..k of the cellular celepN0ne <br />indus'try in their ate'as had led ro comprehensive land u~ and <br />zoning procedur~ for tt~ siting of towr. a~ Other commtmities, <br />realizing the cha~e~ Oat would ocoar with dere~lar2on, <br />~ to restructure their ordinances ev~ in advance of th~ <br />federal legislation, lv~t cidm and counties, however, have <br />been kandling siting requm~s on a case-by-case basis while <br />trying to educate ttm-n~ves and their constituents alx~t tke.~ <br />new tecknolog~s and tt~ mo~t effective me.ns for in~l;rafing <br />them into the fabric of tM communi~s life and lan~cape. <br /> <br />To begin implementing the provisions of'the 1996 Act, local <br />governments muse l'tave or enact zoning ordinances dine <br />consider the placement &cellular rowers in local ¢ommtmides. <br />After reviewing the Aces provisions, local otT~:ials should have <br />appropriate pem:mnel review the locali~ zoning ordinance. <br />Many commtmides may 6md thac they have no local ordinance <br />regulating the placement of cellular cowers, ckac their current <br />ordinance completely prohibiu towers, or that it is hOC <br />d~igned co accommodate emergir~ technotogies such as <br />perform[ communications services. Any oiethese si~uatiorts <br />pre~nts a problem for tke loca[it~, <br /> <br />has a right to place cowers in any location in th~ commtmity. <br />Or~ the other hand, an ordinaru:e that batts the placement of' <br />towers anywhere in the community violates the 1996 <br />T~lecommu_nkaOom Ac~ if thc ban ptohibi~ a~:~ to the ..... <br />services provided by the indus.. :- i~.,,' <br /> <br />Irt drafr2rtg or reviewkqg local z~ning ordinances, localitie~ <br />sh=uld ~mem~r ~t &~ cm ~e ~ p~ent, <br />~ifi~do~ ~d ~ction ora mw~ l~g~ <br />r~hfion d~ not p~e ~e abili~ ~a ~m~ <br />wirel~ ~i~, ~, l~liti~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <br />ord--= ~t ~t &e ~hce~ne ff ~wm ~ acc~ <br /> <br />While ordinances ate as different as the city, r~wn, or counv/ <br />for which they are written, local governments should consider <br />including the criteria and examples in this chapter as the~ <br />review and revkse their law~. These example~ are cited becaus~ <br />they balance three impomc things: 1) d'm need to prote~ <br />communities From the di~dvantages of uncontrolled <br />proliferation and placement of wirele~ facilities, 2) the <br />Iegitirrmre desires of local citizens to access and use the new <br />technologies a~ quickly ~ tx:mible and 3) the legi'.firrmte right <br />of businesses ro exerc~ free trade. <br /> <br />Some ordinances ate general and some are vev/specific. <br />Approaches var./with the problems chat are foreseen. For <br />example, Greenburgh. New York. has set up a "tiered" system <br />of acceptable sites. Commercial locations are favored <br /> <br />9 <br /> <br />SBTIID NW HO ~Bq <br /> <br /> <br />