|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Planning topics: Community Development Divisions: Related links: |
Proposed 90 Day Tower MoratoriumPlanning Division Memorandum - April 9, 1996BackgroundUntil recently, wireless telephone service was provided in Bloomington by only two federally licensed providers, US West New Vector Group and ATT Wireless (who bought out Cellular One). In 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) widened the wireless telecommunications playing field by selling two additional licenses in new frequency ranges (netting $7 billion dollars nationwide). For this area, those licenses were purchased by Sprint Spectrum and American Portable Telecomm (APT). Both Sprint and APT will provide the next generation digital wireless services commonly referred to as PCS (Personal Communication Services). The FCC may sell additional PCS licenses in the future. A third new wireless telecommunications provider is OneComm, who entered the mix by purchasing several of Motorola's Specialized Mobilized Radio (SMR) licenses and then obtaining FCC approval to attach their enhanced system (ESMR) to the land line telephone network. The expansion of the wireless telecommunications industry along with its recent technological improvements will have many positive effects on Bloomington's residents, including lower rates, higher quality service, higher security, and the ability to transmit data and video signals from remote locations. Unfortunately, the positive aspects of this new technology will be accompanied by a proliferation of new communications towers. Each of the three new wireless telecommunication providers will need to set up its own antenna and tower infrastructure in the near future. The two existing providers will also require additional tower sites as their systems continue to evolve. Even more towers will be needed as the FCC auctions additional licenses to new providers. Local governments will need to work closely with the wireless telecommunications industry to provide high quality service while minimizing the negative impacts of numerous communication towers. Federal Telecommunications ActAnother recent telecommunications development is the passage of the Federal Telecommunications Act. The Act originally included language that would override a municipality's zoning controls over telecommunications towers. This language was removed shortly before passage, however, and the Act now reads, "Except as provided (herein), nothing in this act shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities." The Act does place three important limitations on local governments: 1) cities may not "unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services", 2) cities may not "prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services", and 3) cities may not regulate personal wireless services "on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the (FCC's) regulations concerning such emissions." Existing RegulationsOver the last 60 days, the city staff has received numerous inquiries from wireless telecommunication providers regarding the location of antennas and towers on city owned and privately owned land. These inquiries along with the recent passage of the Federal Telecommunications Act have forced a re-evaluation of Bloomington's zoning restrictions on wireless telecommunications facilities. In the past, cellular towers in Bloomington have been considered "public utility uses" for the purposes of obtaining development approval. As a "public utility use", the towers are allowed as a permitted use in all zoning districts and are exempt from the height restrictions. Moreover, there are no design requirements or performance standards in place to ensure that the tower blends into its surroundings to the maximum extent possible. As a "public utility use" the existing regulations could, in theory, allow the placement of a 140 foot metal frame tower on a vacant residential lot. Wireless telecommunications providers do not fit well into the classic "public utility" image. true public utilities have a monopoly on the provision of an essential service and are heavily regulated. Today, with five private providers competing for customers, wireless telecommunications is moving even farther away from what we think of as a "public utility". If, for development approval purposes, wireless telecommunication facilities were not considered "public utility uses", towers would be subject to a very different set of restrictions under Bloomington's current zoning ordinance. First of all, none of the zoning districts reference telecommunication towers as a permitted or conditional use. This fact leaves open to interpretation where towers would be allowed. Moreover, the towers would also be subject to the height limitations for structures. Under these height limitations, a tower over 80 feet in height (which most towers are) would have to be located at least 600 feet from the nearest "protected residential property". These height restrictions would preclude placement of towers in large areas of Bloomington and would leave the city open to the challenge that the regulations "have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services" as specified in the Federal Telecommunications Act. In summary, the regulation of towers under Bloomington's current zoning ordinance depends largely on whether or not they are classified as "public utility uses". When classified as "public utility uses", the existing regulations clearly do not provide Bloomington's residents with adequate protection against the negative impacts of telecommunication towers. When not classified as "public utility uses", the existing regulations become so restrictive that they may violate federal law. Either interpretation is very undesirable for the City of Bloomington. Ordinance RevisionsClearly the zoning regulations need to be revised. Ordinance revisions are necessary 1) to facilitate the provision of increased wireless telecommunication service, and 2) to provide adequate performance, design, structural, and location standards to protect the public safety and welfare. The revisions will include a clear definition of "public utilities" and will specify the zoning districts in which towers will be allowed. The revisions will also include reasonable height restrictions for towers near residential uses, incentives to locate antennas on existing towers or buildings, incentives for providers to share tower space in order to minimize the total number of towers, structural requirements, design requirements, setbacks, and other important elements. Use of City Owned LandEach of the providers have expressed interest in leasing space on city owned land for their wireless telecommunications facilities. While some city owned land would be inappropriate for such uses, other sites may provide suitable locations and supply a potential revenue stream. It is necessary that the city prepare and adopt a consistent statement of policy regarding the placement of such facilities on city owned land, especially in light of the Federal Telecommunications Act which stipulates that cities may not "discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services". A formally adopted policy will ensure that requests from competing providers are handled on a consistent basis. MoratoriumIn summary, staff recommends a 90 day moratorium on the construction of towers for the following reasons:
By limiting the moratorium to 90 days, the city is recognizing the time constraints faced by the new providers in bringing their service on line. There are cities in the area that have adopted twelve month moratoriums. Moreover, the moratorium would not restrict the placement of wireless telecommunications antennas on existing buildings or towers. The city encourages such placement of antennas as a method for reducing the number of freestanding towers.
For more information, contact: Planning Division
|
