|
wired to wireless communication options, communities will
<br /> experience an increase[in the concentration of state-of-the-art
<br /> transmitting cells, alle{~edly resulting in a proportional decrease in
<br /> the height of the towels that support them and a shift toward
<br /> more building-mount~,d antennas. This may be true for urban
<br /> areas, which have the ~equisite density for this to happen, but the
<br /> rural landscape will al~ays lack the tall buildings that can serve as
<br /> support devices.
<br /> In any event, until t. he design of these facilities improves, the
<br /> cellular tower and its a~companying antennas remain locally
<br /> unwanted land uses. Rj:sidents have always resisted
<br /> communications towez~s of any kind in their neighborhoods,
<br /> viewing them as visual~ disruptive. Furthermore, towers and
<br /> the communication dei, ices they support emit non-ionizing
<br /> electromagnetic fields, ~ source of significant health concerns.
<br /> 'Whether hazardous to ~uman health or not, these uses bear the
<br /> perception of danger, ~hlch threatens adjacent property values
<br /> and qual,ty ofhfe. ToNers have also been known to topple m
<br /> bad weather. The publiC's eagerness to embrace cellular
<br /> technology is not accor~panied by a willingness to accept its
<br /> environmental drawback.
<br /> With those challeng~ in mind, the survey's purpose was
<br /> threefold. Our first prio}rity was to determine whether local
<br /> governments unduly block the siting of cellular towers and,
<br /> thus, the development ~f the "information skyway system." Our
<br /> second was to determin{ how local governments felt about the
<br /> local siting preemption ~ecause we needed to ensure their
<br /> interests were represente{d in Washington. Finally, we wanted to
<br /> collect information on l~cal siting policies to assist local
<br /> governments in the revidw of future cellular tower and PCS
<br /> facility applications.
<br /> We distributed the s~rvey in mid-September to jurisdictions
<br />of all sizes. It was broadc~st-faxed to APA chapter leadership,
<br />who were asked to fax it i:o at least five jurisdictions within their
<br />local chapters. We received 230 responses. The first half of the
<br />survey concerns the appl{cation policies for cellular facilities.
<br />The second half deals wi~ the specific siting details that
<br />communities reported. T~. ese latter responses are not as
<br />quantifiable or as freque~t as the responses from the first section
<br />and appear in an anecdotal format. Each question is presented
<br />with its accompanying re{ponses. Where appropriate, graphical
<br />representation has been p~ovided.
<br /> 1. Has your community {~Ver received an application for
<br />permission to erect a cell~ar commtmicadon tower?. . Yes
<br /> (how many? .) No.
<br /> Total responses: 230.
<br />
<br />2 - 4. How many tower applications has your community
<br />approved, and how many}has it denied? What is the current
<br />number of towers standir~g.
<br /> Total responses: 230. We received responses from 32
<br />states (average per contri}uting state = 7). Texas, Michigan,
<br />Maryland, and Florida each supplied more than 10. (See
<br />adjacent chart roi respons, es on questions 1 - 4. Data on
<br />status of cellular tower apr~lications are as of November 7,
<br />1995.)
<br /> A total of 1,390 tower applications had been submitted for
<br />review; 1,134 (82%) were {pproved, and only 116 (8%) were
<br />denied. The rema,nmg 10% had a status of approval pending
<br />or "permitted prior to zoni{~g provisions enacted."
<br /> Respondents reported 1~255 cellular towers standing as of
<br />that date, an average of 5.5 iper jurisdiction. The ratio of tower
<br />approvals to towers currently standing is slightly skewed by the
<br />
<br />2
<br />
<br />fact that some respondents included in their standing count
<br />towers erected prior to the existence of any approval process.
<br />
<br />CELLULAR TOWER SITING ACTIVITIES
<br /> (Questions I-4)
<br />
<br /> [] Applications
<br /> 6001 Received
<br /> 500! ' --.1~ Applications
<br /> 4001 ~ Approved
<br /> 300{ ~ I~i Applications
<br />
<br /> -- Towers
<br /> O, '~J ' Currently
<br />
<br /> %~s/Gties OtJes ~ties over Counties
<br /> under betw~n 200,000 with Zoning
<br /> 5O, OOO 5G, OOO- Authodty
<br /> 200,000
<br />
<br /> ~. ~pm~cd~ how ~on~ does ~c ~pp~c~on
<br />
<br /> ~2-4wee~ ~l-2mon~s ~3-6mon~s
<br /> 6+ monks.
<br /> Total re~o~es: 205.
<br />
<br /> PROC[SSING TIME
<br />
<br /> -. : . ..
<br />
<br /> ~ I- - ~ ' ~ ' ~ ~' ' ~ ~3 to6Months
<br />
<br /> Ioms/Oties ~ties Oties ov~ Counties
<br /> undez ~tw~n 200,000
<br /> 50,000 50,00~ Zoning
<br /> 200,000
<br />
<br />6. ~ ~ ~ficipated incre~e in tower appli~fions, is your
<br />comm~iw updating or s~emlining iB present renew
<br />process? Y~ ~ No
<br /> Total re~omes: I SZ
<br />
<br /> (0gg~81~ RlSP0~S[ 10
<br />
<br /> tOues~ion 6)
<br />
<br /> ~~ - ~. C~ Streamlining
<br />
<br /> 30% - ' ": ~ Nol 5tteamlinlng
<br />
<br /> under ~n 200,000 with
<br /> 50,000 50,000- Zoning
<br /> 200,000
<br />
<br />7. Were ~e m~n concerns reg~ding tower approv~ in
<br />your commu~w related to: ~ Aes~efic appe~ce
<br />He~ ris~ Stmcmr~ soundness
<br />TotalResponses: 20~ Many respondents chose more than
<br />one option, with 339 "main concerns" reported. 183 (89%)
<br />listed aesthetics; 74 (36%) reported structural soundness was
<br />a main concern; and 82 (40%) reported health risks as a
<br />prima~ concern. ,
<br />
<br />
<br />
|