|
|
The Wireless Conundrum Continues:
|
|
|
Gay Wells, AICP
|
© & Author Info |
This article summarizes the work being done by the Cape Cod Commission in regards to regulation of wireless service facilities in the Cape Cod area including monopole facilities. Much of this work is applicable to cities throughout the country. This includes and overview of their DRI (Development of Regional Impact) process and siting criteria. The Commission encourages communities to take a proactive and participatory approach to the regulatory process and this article provides a list of their process recommendations.
The Cape Cod Commission is the regional planning and regulatory agency for the fifteen Cape Cod towns and its authority is granted through the Cape Cod Commission Act which was enacted in 1989. The Commission has been working on its wireless communication program for almost three years and it is both a planning initiative and a regulatory process. In the Fall of 1996 the Commission received a Municipal Incentive Grant from the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development to address the issues of siting and regulating wireless communication facilities on a regional basis. Because these facilities are established as a network or system, there is a true opportunity for regional planning. Through the grant the Commission hired a consultant, Kreines & Kreines of California, who worked with the Commission staff to develop two products: the Siting Criteria and a Model Bylaw for Personal Wireless Service Facilities, which are being used by the Cape towns and others.
The Siting Criteria for Personal Wireless Service Facilities is an overview of the issues and presents important considerations for towns to keep in mind when reviewing applications for wireless facilities. The Model Bylaw for Personal Wireless Service Facilities is based upon the Siting Criteria and is intended for use by the Cape towns; although, it is easily transferable to other locations and we estimate that over 800 copies of these documents have been distributed nation-wide. These are available through the Cape Cod Commission and the Model Bylaw is also available on the Commission's web site. This is found with a collection of 14 model bylaws on various planning and regulatory topics at http://www.capecodcommission.org/bylaws/.
The Commission staff initiated a collaborative planning process which included our consultant, town planners and planning board members, the wireless carriers, residents, police and fire safety personnel, water districts, Commonwealth Electric, and other interested parties. This planning process has been, and continues to be, very exciting.
The Commission is emphasizing the desirability of locating on already existing buildings and structures. We are also encouraging "co-location" where more than one carrier is located on the same mount. With help from the Cape towns, we have developed a computerized GIS mapping of a Cape-wide inventory of existing buildings and structures over fifty feet in height which may be suitable for antenna installations.
Also shown on the maps are airports, water resource areas, conservation areas, state and federal land, and electrical transmission corridors. We have been working with water districts and Commonwealth Electric regarding the locating of wireless facilities on their existing equipment or within their easements. We have held meetings with the wireless carriers and have made this site procurement information available to them.
The Cape Cod Commission is unique in Massachusetts in that it is the regional regulatory agency for the Cape, as well as the regional planning agency. In response to the possibility of many new towers on Cape Cod, the Commission initiated a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) threshold and passed an ordinance which became effective in January, 1997. This ordinance required review by the Cape Cod Commission of the construction of any wireless communication tower or monopole exceeding thirty-five (35) feet in height. This means that upon application for a permit in any of the Cape towns, any proposed new tower construction over 35 feet in height is required to be referred by the town to the Cape Cod Commission for review as a Development of Regional Impact.
This DRI threshold has since been amended to exempt reconstruction or replacement of an existing wireless communication tower on the same site, provided that the reconstruction or replacement does not exceed the height of the existing tower or monopole by more than twenty (20) feet. Since the tower already exists, we felt that a slightly stronger and taller tower at the same location would have minimal additional visual impact; however, a municipality will need to assess the environmental and visual sensitivity of a particular location to determine if rebuilding or replacement would be appropriate.
One of the biggest questions each town must ask is whether it wants fewer, but higher and more visually obtrusive facilities with the co-location of several antennas, rather than more, but shorter, facilities with fewer antennas on each facility. On Cape Cod we decided not to make a blanket policy and believe that this will have to be decided on a case-by-case basis depending upon the sensitivities of the locations.
The Commission's DRI review for wireless facilities first focuses on alternatives to proposed new towers or monopoles and looks very closely at existing buildings and structures in the vicinity of the proposed tower as possible alternative locations. Applicants must document that they pursued alternative locations on existing structures prior to filing an application for a new tower or monopole. As part of the review process, we have hired engineering consultants to evaluate the technical data provided by the primary carrier and all co-locating carriers. If the use of existing structures in the area of the proposal is adequately shown to be infeasible, the proposal for the new tower or monopole is then considered, with particular emphasis on co-location of more than one carrier on the facility.
With regard to construction of new towers or monopoles, the Commission prefers proposals with at least three committed carriers. Although the Commission has reviewed facilities with fewer co-locators than three, it requires documentation that the proposing carrier has contacted in writing all other carriers licensed for Cape Cod regarding the proposed facility. Co-location for new towers or monopoles is stressed. Single-carrier facilities and speculative towers are not encouraged. The Commission seeks sites with limited impact on significant scenic and historic resources and minimal environmental impacts, and seeks proposals with siting and design features which successfully camouflage the facility.
The Commission also requires that a bond be posted with the town at the time of the building permit which will pay for possible costs to dismantle and remove the tower or monopole, and restore the site should technological advancements make the need for these facilities obsolete in the future.
In the midst of our planning and regulating activities, a compelling issue has surfaced which we increasingly feel the need to address and that is the issue of potential adverse health effects from radio frequency emissions from wireless communication facilities. On Cape Cod where land is scarce and parcels of land are small, the question of health effects has become of great concern to many residents and to municipal agencies as well. The question of how to deal with this issue is particularly difficult given the restrictions by the Telecommunications Act which prohibits denying a permit for a wireless facility based solely on concerns about adverse health effects. This particular issue puts towns in a perplexing situation because a denial of a facility due to health concerns may mean being sued by the wireless carrier and, in areas where resident sentiments against these facilities are strong, an approval for a facility may mean being sued by the town's residents.
Since the Cape Cod Commission has regulatory authority over all new tower construction greater than 35 feet in height, the Commission has been asked by many residents to respond to this issue. At the time of the writing of this paper, we have organized an educational panel to be held with five panelists representing a variety of viewpoints on this important topic. At this time, the Commission has made no policy changes and will be looking to this educational forum as a way to further educate ourselves, municipal agencies, and residents about this issue. The Commission's Staff Counsel also keeps informed about the decisions for all wireless legal cases across the country. As further information is reviewed, the Commission will discuss our policies for siting wireless facilities and what actions, if any, to take with regard to possible adverse health effects.
The siting of wireless communication facilities involves many important and complex issues and the Commission encourages municipalities and regional councils to become active participants in the planning process for locating and regulating these facilities. We suggest working directly with the wireless carriers to reach agreement about facility locations based on town and regional concerns as well as the carriers' needs. The Commission makes the following recommendations:
It is important for planners and others to approach this new technology from an informed position and to work toward the least intrusive outcome in order to protect the environment and open space, and to preserve historic heritage, community character, and scenic beauty.
Gay Wells, AICP
Cape Cod Commission, Massachusetts
3225 Main Street, P.O. Box 226, Barnstable, MA 02630
Phone 508/362-3828
Fax 508/362-3136
E-mail: frontdesk@capecodcommission.org