|
r=
<br /> I
<br /> h
<br /> laws codifying objective standards reasonably able burden on staff and,because of the Shot Since these facilities will likely be need-
<br /> related to health and safety,including local Clock requirement,often force them to place ed throughout most communities,and are
<br /> zoning and wireless siting,design,and con- these applications ahead of other types of ap- often attempted to be placed directly in front
<br /> struction regulations.However,6409(a)and plications awaiting action.Staff is often forced of residences and in sensitive historic pres-
<br /> 14-153 do preempt the following: to"rubber-stamp"the applications(as sub- ervation and view shed areas,planners and
<br /> mitted),rather than having the time to review total officials should be very careful in making
<br /> • The definitions of what constitute an"eli- the applications in the detail needed,and the necessary new policy decisions regarding
<br /> gible facility"and a"substantial modifica- intended,by both Congress and the FCC. placement,size,and appearance vis-A-vis the
<br /> tion"of a facility,both inside the PROW Because the requests to place new(tall) PROW.In doing so,it is critical to keep in mind
<br /> and outside the PROW. wireless facilities in the PROW is new terri- the law of unintended or unforeseen con-
<br /> The maximum time allowed for determina- tory for many municipalities,we recommend sequences.Knowledge of the industry,and
<br /> tion of completeness/incompleteness and that they immediately start thinking carefully especially what it considers its confidential
<br /> action on an application(i.e.,the"Shot about the end result(s)they want to achieve. and proprietary plans and goals,is the key to
<br /> Clock"requirement).The allowed time This includes what they want to prevent,what preventing this!To attempt to do this without
<br /> periods are 6o days for an eligible facility they want to encourage,and what they want an intimate knowledge of the industry can be
<br /> and 15o days for a substantial modifica- to assure happens,as well as the policies dangerous and can have both short-and long-
<br /> tion or for a new support structure/tower needed to achieve those results.As examples, term undesired consequences.
<br /> (unless a longer period of time is mutually does the community want to regulate any of
<br /> agreeable). the following vis-A-vis the PROW? RECOMMENDATIONS
<br /> • Certain National Environmental Policy Act The following recommendations for consider-
<br /> requirements,under certain conditions, The maximum allowable height of facilities ation by planners and local officials are based 151
<br /> for an eligible facility application. in the PROW upon what have been unchallenged policies
<br /> • Proof of technical need for eligible facili- • The minimum separation distances be- and practices to date.
<br /> ties. tween wireless facilities
<br /> • The location vis-A-vis the PROW in front of Priority of Types of Permits
<br /> Conditions for Eligible Facilities Permits residences Make sure the community's wireless facility
<br /> Given that a community must t ermit an e[i i- Appearance/aesthetics(e.g,camoufag regulations expressly state that even though
<br /> ble facility application,and may not deny it,a Ing to minimize the impact on the nature a new structure may be proposed to go in the
<br /> key issue is that of being able to attach condi- and character of the area) PROW,and notwithstanding anything else to
<br /> tions.We are not aware of any FCC rule or case • Setback distances the contrary,such a new structure,regardless
<br /> law that prohibits attaching conditions to a . Placement and appearance of ancillary of its location,height,or appearance,should
<br /> wireless facility permit,including eligible fact[- equipment(e.g.,equipment enclosures) be defined as first,foremost,and always a
<br /> ity applications.However,for an eligible facil- • The amount of rent charged forthe private, (wireless)communications tower or facility
<br /> ity application on an existing structure,the commercial use of the PROW that is subject to the local wireless facility
<br /> law does prohibit attaching any condition(s)
<br /> in excess of or more stringent than are needed
<br /> to assure compliance with the permit issued '
<br /> for the original facility. 5
<br /> HANDLING TODAY'S SITUATION
<br /> The current situation,as it has developed,is a
<br /> game changer for planners and local officials. m e
<br /> Regrettably,in our experience many,if not
<br /> �. :.
<br /> most,municipalities are unprepared for what — y
<br /> will be the large number of applications,often
<br /> submitted simultaneously,for small cell sites,
<br /> DAS nodes,and microwave backhaul Instal-
<br /> lations,especially in public rights-of-way. g
<br /> We have seen communities as small as 1,500 t a
<br /> residential units have as many as a half-dozen
<br /> applications filed simultaneously by a single
<br /> carrier.In other larger communities as many
<br /> as 20 applications,or notices of intent for as
<br /> many,if not more applications,have been ® • , , , , .,
<br /> filed simultaneously by a single applicant.
<br /> Both of these situations place an unreason-
<br /> ZONINGPRACTICE 1-1.16
<br /> AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION page 5
<br /> i
<br />
|