Laserfiche WebLink
L ((())) <br /> <br />KEY EI,.EMEHIS OF A CELLULAR TOWER ORDINANCE <br /> <br />A local gov~r normally ha~ in place a general ~oning <br />ordinance which ~ periodically review~ and rev~ m light <br />s~cietal, technolo~cal, and other chan~e~. Following the <br />deregulation of the r~lecommuni~tions iMustry by the <br />Telecommunic~tiom Acc of 1996, communities across the <br />Un[ted States witnessed a dramatic increase in wi~eless <br />F~:ilkies applications, <br /> <br />Many cities and counties found themselves wkhou~ an <br />adequate ~ramework to ~alwith the~e rapidly <br />technologie.~ Irt ~m¢ place~, [ocal governments were bec:er <br />prepared becau.~e the early growr, h of the cellul~ telephone <br />industr? ~n their areas ~ [ed co compr~hensNe land use and <br />zoning procedures for ttxe siting of ~ Ocher communkies, <br />realizing dsc changes d'mt would occur with dcregular, ion, <br />began r,o t~-ucture r~ir ordinances even m advance o~ the <br />federal legishtiom Most cities ~ counties, hnwever, have <br />been handI~ slt:~ r~u~ts on a ca~e~b~-<~ue basis w~le <br />trying to educate them.~elves ~ thek constituen~ about <br />new technologi~ and the mo~ effec6ve means for k~t~:mting <br />them into &e f~hric o~the cc~.municy's life and lan&cape. <br /> <br />Over ew <br /> <br />To begin implemenrJng the provisions o(t~e 1996 Acc, local <br />goverrunent~ musl: have or enac~ z~nLng ordirta~ces th~c <br />consider the placement of cellular towers ~ local communities. <br />A~e~ reviewing the Acrs provisions, local officials should have <br />appropriate peru:mhd mv~w the locality's zoning ordinance. <br />Many communixies ma?' f'md char they have no local ordinance <br />regulating the placement of cellular towers, &at their cur~-¢r,t <br />ordinance completely prohibits towers, or that it Ls hOC <br />designed to accommochre emerging t~chnotogies such as <br />Personal communkcat[ons servkes. Any of these situations <br />pre,~ncs a probl .em/or the locality. <br /> <br />Irt d.r~ or reviewk~ local zoning ordinances, kx:alities ¥''' <br />should remember that they can regulate the phr. x:menr, <br />modification, and consm~:tion ora rower so long as the <br />~eguladon does not preclude the ability ~a comumer to ~ <br />wireless services. (Ahenv~, [ocalides ar~ fre~ to enact <br />ordirmnces that [xaxtit the placement of cowers in ac¢ordan~ <br />with the concerns and needs of the coramunky. <br /> <br />While ocdinance~ are as different as the city, w,~, or county <br />for which they are written, local governments should consider <br />including the criteria and examples in this chapter as theq <br />review and revise their laws. The~ eommples are cited because <br />they balance three important &ings: 1) ~ need m prorecz <br />communities (rom the d~dvantages of uaco~trolled <br />ptolffer'atiort and placement of wireless fac[Iities, 2) the <br />tegkimace desires of'local citi~ev.s ro access and use the new <br />t~chnologies as quickly as tx~ssib[e and 3) the Iegi'.timatc right <br />c~bmines~es w exercL~ free rr'ade. <br /> <br />Some ordinances are genera[ and some are very q>ecific. <br />Approaches vary with the problem that are foresa~en. For <br />example, Greenburgh, New York. has sec up a "tiered" system <br />of acceptable skes. Commercial locations are favored <br /> <br />9 <br /> <br />In the absence of an ordinance, thc industry mig~ argue <br />has a right to place towers in any location irt the commtmity. <br />On the other hand, an ordinance that bans the placement of' <br />towers anywhere in the communixy violates the 1996 <br />Telecommunications Act ~fthe ban prohibits access to r.M ..... <br />services provided by the industry. ': <br /> :'_ ~,,~.":,. <br /> <br /> <br />