Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/01/2016

Home

s { or more smaller/shorter facilities can achieve m� substantially the same result,or better;nor 0 does it require a community to take into ac- count the c-countthe capital cost to a carrier to achieve v` what it desires while complying with land- use anyl zoning regulations.Those costs are capitalized under an accelerated depreciation schedule. 3 r � j t4 Minimizing Visual Impact in the PROW i. To minimize the visual impact and control the 3 " appearance of a specific facility in the PROW, 3 l communities might want to consider requir- ing,as the number one siting priority,that any w' proposed(new)array of antennas be mounted on a structure that enables the antennas to be IMF, laced inside a new ole,unless the applicant P P P ° r I can prove(by clear and convincingtech ni- " cal evidence)that doing so would serve to ' "prohibit"the provision of service to at leasta r r substantial portion of the area intended to be served by the new facility(47 U.S.C.§332(c) (7,6,11).This is a very high bar that Congress intentionally set,and in most instances involv- ing the PROW is extremely difficult to prove technically,if one knows and understands the technical intricacies and nuances involved. regulations.Any other permitting regulations distance from their home that would not oth- Another slightly different approach would be should be secondary to this and should re- erwise be allowed in the residential district, to prohibit any new antenna array from being quire a zoning or land-use permit under the Communities can also stipulate that the visibly identifiable as such to the average per- local wireless facility regulations before ob- maximum permitted height in the PROW(or son—different wording,but the same effect. taining any other permit. within reasonable proximity to the PROW)may Rather than just accepting another ugly be no taller than the existing,immediately ad- new array of antennas attached to an existing Maximum Permitted Height jacent utility poles or light standards.This is utility pole or light standard,and notwith- We recommend that communities establish a not an unreasonable limit,since the vast ma- - standing 6409(a),some communities require maximum permitted height for wireless facili- jority of the new wireless facilities going in the that,instead of just colocating on an existing ties in the PROW.Communities may want to PROW are for capacity and are not primarily to utility or light pole with the antennas mounted consider different height limits for different increase coverage.They are intended to serve on the outside around the pole,an applicant zoning districts,or different geographic parts only a portion of the area currently served, must arrange to have the pole replaced with of the community regardless of the zoning and thus increased coverage is not normally one that houses the antenna(s)inside.They district, an issue,other than to improve service to may still locate in the PROW,but they must For taller facilities proposed in less re- residents in some small areas on the border of do it in accordance with this"stealthing"or strictively zoned districts(such as industrial the current service area.The goal is to have no "camouflaging"policy in the community's or commercial districts),but near more re- service borders, wireless facility siting regulations. strictively zoned districts(such as residential Since they're generally goingto be serv- districts),there is an easy way to mitigate the ing only a portion of the area currently served, Revenue and Rent impact and possibly prevent a good deal of these sites seldom need to be taller than the For reasons of generating revenue,a com- political dissatisfaction from the public. existing adjacent utility poles.Providers may munity may prefer new wireless facilities to be A community may want to require that, need to construct two shorter facilities,rather located in the PROW as the number one siting within a given distance of the boundary of an than a single taller facility or one shorter facil- priority.The rent forthe commercial use of the adjacent zoning district that is more restrictive ity in combination with a colocation on an ex- PROW can be deemed an encroachment fee,a (e.g.,within i,000 feet of an R-1 zoning dis- isting structure,but most communities would franchise fee,or any functional equivalent.In trict),the height limit is the same as the more prefer either of these situations to a single tall most states this can be accomplished easily restrictive district.Otherwise,residents living facility(that's really not needed technically). in the local regulations.This rent can be sig- on or near the district border will likely have Federal law does not require a commu- nificantly more than many communities real- to live with the effects of a facility only a short nity to grant a permit for a single facility if two ize they can demand,and regrettably,all too ZONINGPRACTICE 11.16 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 1page 6