11/13/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Wireless Master Plans Wireless Update is receiving more inquiries regarding Wireless Master Plans. What are they and why do we think they are superior to an ordinance (regulation) or policy (guideline) approach? First of all, Wireless Master Plans include or depend on an implementing ordinance and/or a municipal policy. Rather than supplanting regulations or guidelines, a Wireless Master Plan adds to the ordinance or policy the one ingredient that distinguishes it: a geographic base. Second, some planners believe that a Zoning Map provides the geographic base needed for a Wireless Master Plan. Wireless Update thinks placing cell sites in permissive districts such as industrial or commercial enclaves, can have profound impacts on nearby properties in residential zones. No municipality would ever have designed a zoning district for 100 -foot (and higher) mounts within a community of two- or three -storied structures (unless they called it "the Tower District"). Cities and counties are adding these exceptions or conditional (special) uses as afterthoughts in land use districts. Cell sites can be called "land uses" or "utilities" if it's convenient, but what they are is infrastructure. Third, cities and counties are approving cell sites on a one -at -a -time basis, even though cell sites are actually parts of a network or system (which is why they are infrastructure). Some cities and counties ask for a build- out plan, but carriers are reluctant to show local government that which the cities and counties all know they have. How can planners add, in good faith, incremental pieces to a system when planners lack an idea of what the ultimate network will look like? More important, what would all the carriers' built -out networks look like when super -imposed on each other? Does anyone, including the FCC, have an idea of what that would look like? Fourth, how would a Wireless Master Plan relate to co - location? If planners knew where all the cell sites might go, then they would have a better chance of co -locating them. The Wireless Master Plan doesn't force a carrier on to a particular co -location mount, but it tells that carrier: here's the general area where the city or county wants your — and the others' — cell site to go ... start talking. Fifth, the Wireless Master Plan can be a marketing document for the city or county. By pre -approving its own general areas in a Wireless Master Plan, local government gives the carrier and the landowner (often the local government itself) a head start on other landowners who have yet to go through the process. If the city or county adopts the Wireless Master Plan, it just needs to make certain that it hasn't created a conflict of interest by keeping private landowners out of the leasing pool. Sixth, when it comes time to make findings, which Wireless Update recommends for both denials and approvals, the local government will need a written body of substantial evidence. What better place to find substantial evidence than in a recently adopted Wireless Master Plan? Seventh, and finally, what the carriers crave desperately is certainty. A Wireless Master Plan is subjected to public input before pre -approval of acceptable locations, which occurs at adoption. After that, all that remains is an administrative proceeding in order for the carrier to obtain a permit. There should be no surprises to the carver or to the local government as each cell site is proposed. Questions abound: how expensive is a Wireless Master Plan? (Not very, and the cost is recoverable from the carriers). How long does a Wireless Master Plan take? (Several weeks where the carriers cooperate, several months when they don't.) Are specific sites identified? (No, general areas are.) Is radiofrequency (RF) engineering required? (This is a variable, although a minimal amount of RF engineering is recommended.) Wireless Update doesn't recommend the use of model Wireless Master Plans for the same reason Wireless Update doesn't recommend model ordinances. Each month Wireless Update features articles on lawsuits and it won't be long before the ordinance or Wireless Master Plan borrowed from another jurisdiction will end up resulting in litigation. Wireless Update's advice: take the time, include the carriers and consult the public. We call that a win -win-win. Johnson County, Kansas Retains Kreines & Krelnes to Review its "Communications Tower" Regulations Johnson County, immediately to the southwest of Kansas City, is experiencing "tower fever" with the number of applicants approaching the planning counter. The first order of business was to retain Kreines & Kreines, Inc. to help staff with the revisions to the Johnson County Zoning and Subdivision Code. Johnson County is addressing issues that are similar to many local governments trying to make the previously existing zoning provisions work for wireless. Here are some of the issues dealt with in -the County's new regulations: • Definitions of terms consistent to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. • Rationales for what the County wants in the regulations (e.g., co -location). These rationales will provide substantial evidence in the event any cell sites are denied by the County. • Co -location of cell sites is defined and rules for co - location are established. Call Kreines & Kreines, Inc. if your jurisdiction needs a document reviewed. The time and cost is low. Kreines & Kreines, Inc. will be doing a review of a Florida city's proposed regulations next. Published by Kreines & Krelnes, Inc., Consultants to Cities & Counties on Wireless Planning 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920 phone: (415) 435-9214, fax: (415) 435-1522, a -mail: wireless.update@worldnetattnet N NOVEMBER 13, 1996 BOOK 99 PAGE 818