Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 4 - Special Report <br /> <br />Z.B. <br /> <br />-, <br /> <br />What's a town to do? <br />Localities should review their ordinances to ensure consistency with <br />the Act's requirements. In particular, municipalities should note the ban on <br />prohibiting facilities from discriminating, as well as the lack of authority <br />to regulate based on health effects of radio frequency emissions. Officials <br />also should ensure prompt responses to permit requests, though they need <br />not give telecommunications companies preferential treatment. <br />Localities should also update their ordinances to reflect new technologies <br />and should treat applications for communications facilities as uses allowed <br />only by special permit, suggests Church, whose Planning Federation has <br />drafted model language addressing telecommunications facility siting. <br />Localities should also encourage shared use of property. <br />In addition, cities and towns should consider limiting telecommunica- <br />tions towers to municipal property. Several Massachusetts towns have used <br />overlay districts that contain only towers and municipal uses. According to <br />Bobrowski, this approach has a dual benefit - it garners the fee for leasing <br />the property and keeps towers out of residential areas. <br />Officials may, under the right circumstances, adopt a temporary <br />moratorium on issuing permits. An International City/County Management <br />Association report on siting telecommunications facilities encourages <br />local governments to communicate with applicants about the duration of <br />any moratorium, what the locality expects to accomplish during the <br />moratorium, and how applicants can help the locality achieve its goals. <br />Localities should seek technical support to help them identify tower <br />sites. For technical reasons, companies are often very specific about where <br />they want to locate. Nonetheless, they should be able to identify alternative <br />sites. Municipalities may want to identify candidate sites ahead of time. <br />To the extent authorized by law, municipalities should enact provisions <br />to minimize the negative impacts (visual, safety, traffic and, where allowed, <br />aesthetic) of tower facilities. Again, officials should be aware that rigid <br />adherence to strict criteria may have the effect of prohibiting facilities. <br />Municipalities should provide for the proper cleanup of tower sites once a <br />facility is no longer in use. <br />Finally, local officials and citizens should look to their own state's law, <br />which may require environmental impact review or change the way <br />communications facilities are treated. Officials also must be mindful of <br />other requirements of federal law, such as the National Environmental <br />Policy Act and FAA requirements concerning air traffic. <br /> <br />Jonathan E. Cohen, Esq., is affiliated with the Albany, N.f:, law firm <br />Feller & Ferrentino, which specializes in environmenta~ municipal and <br />land-use law. <br /> <br />loft, <br />