01/14/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#Three Alternative Approaches There are 3 alternative approaches that the Board could take in regard to siting wireless communications facilities. These are as follows: 1. County ownership of all wireless facilities sites 2. "Wireless master plan" 3. Planning and regulations (LDR) At its December 19th workshop, the Board indicated that it had no desire to pursue alternative #1 which would involve acquiring, and leasing all wireless communications sites to meet the wireless communications industry's current and future demands. If the Board were to pursue such an alternative, then the county would need to have a detailed RF engineering analysis performed to ensure that county lease sites would meet the industry's needs. In lieu of building and acquiring such infrastructure, the Board discussed alternative #2 which would involve preparing a "wireless master plan" in an attempt to identify tower/antenna sites and locations needed for future wireless communications demand. Some practical problems were discussed regarding the feasibility of modeling and predicting locations for future wireless communications needs. The Board indicated that planning and regulatory proposals (alternative #3) that are "short of performing a wireless master plan" would probably be sufficient and more practical. In staff's opinion, alternative #3 is the most appropriate approach. That approach involves general land use planning to establish criteria for locating various types of towers, and land development regulations that specifically address design, aesthetic, and compatibility issues. This is the approach taken by the county to date. However, in staff's opinion more survey information and RF engineering consultation input is needed to complete the county's efforts. *Survey of Existing Towers 6 Other Potential Co -Location Structures Staff has obtained information from the "Fryar's Guide" database on existing towers in the county. This database is comprised of FCC and private sector information, showing 75 tower sites within Indian River County. Although staff has previously mapped and shown the Board the "public broadcast" radio and PCS tower sites provided via FCC information, this new information includes many of the "private" small business special mobile radio towers in the county. In addition to this new information, county code enforcement officers are performing "windshield" surveys of existing towers along various roadway corridors to cross-check and supplement the "Fryar's Guide" information. In addition, staff are researching possible park and school sites that could be used for locating "camouflaged" antennas on existing or yet -to -be - constructed ballfield light poles. Once these data are compiled and mapped along with locations of existing tall utility poles, the county will be able to see the potential "coverage area" of many of the private and publicly owned potential sites in the county. In staff's opinion, this research can be completed in-house. *Hiring an RF Engineer Consultant Although new county telecommunications specialist Terry Smith is not an RF engineer, he is acquainted with a local RF engineer who has outstanding engineering and scientific credentials, broad experience in telecommunications and wireless technology, and who has no apparent ties to the telecommunications providers that are likely to be affected by the county's proposed tower/antenna siting regulations (LDRs). The engineer/scientist is Dr. Frank Caimi (see attachment #2, resume). Dr. Caimi has reviewed the December 19th Board workshop packet and has discussed with staff the types of technical input that could help the Board in its decisions. The basic types of services that an RF engineer could provide the county are as follows: 1. Prepare a county -wide RF siting plan in an attempt to locate "ahead of time" all necessary tower/antenna sites. 2. Review staff's recent tower/antenna proposals and alternatives to determine adequacy, identify possible modifications or additions, and provide technical comments and recommendations to the county. JANUARY 14, 1997 26 BOO.