REVIEW COMMENTS
7.G.l
STEAL TH TOWERS IN SMU
(CDRV 05-008)
CODE REVIEW
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 05-081
FROM:
Chair and Members
Planning and Development Board
Eric Lee Johnson, AICP ~
Planner U
Michael W. Rumpf
Director of Planning and Zoning
TO:
THROUGH:
DATE:
May 17, 2005
SUBJECT:
CODE REVIEW CDRV 05-008
To allow stealth communication towers in the SMU, Suburban Mixed-Use
zoning district
NATURE OF REQUEST
Ms. Kim Glas-Castro with Ruden McClosky, agent for the property owner, is requesting that the Land
Development Regulations be amended to allow stealth telecommunication towers within the SMU,
Suburban Mixed-Use zoning district. This request would amend Chapter 2, Zoning and Chapter 10,
Telecommunication Towers and Antennas (see Exhibit "C"). It should be noted that the effects of the
subject request, if approved, would only be applicable to properties zoned SMU, which are outside of
the Community Redevelopment Agency boundaries.
BACKGROUND
According to Chapter 10, Section 3.A. of the Land Development Regulations, telecommunication
towers are allowed as conditional uses in the (REe) Recreation, (PU) Public Usage, and (M-1)
Industrial zoning districts. Also, they are currently allowed on properties zoned (PID) Planned
Industrial Development, but owned by the City and only within a park use. Additional restrictions may
apply to telecommunication facilities within each of the above-referenced zoning districts.
The crux of this code review is the applicant's intent to construct a stealth telecommunication facility
on top of a decorative clock tower within the final phase (Phase VI) of their project known as
Renaissance Commons (COUS 04-008). The subject property was formerly the site for Motorola
Incorporated. However, the property once owned by Motorola was ultimately acquired by the current
owners who successfully rezoned the property from PID to (C-3) Community Commercial and then to
SMU, to accommodate a large scale, mixed-use residential/commercial project. After the rezoning,
the Motorola building was demolished and construction began on the townhouses and commercial
buildings. The original Motorola tower, which is currently non-conforming under the SMU zoning
district, still remains on the Renaissance Commons property. The property owners desire to move the
existing tower from its current location and construct a new type of facility at a different, more
desirable location on the subject property. However, they are prohibited from doing so because
moving or replacing the tower would eliminate its legal non-conforming status.
Page 2
CDRV 05-008
ANALYSIS
As previously mentioned, the applicant is proposing to replace the existing tower, which is an aO-foot
tall Monopole facility, with a decorative clock tower elsewhere on the Renaissance Commons property.
The clock tower would be constructed within the sixth and final phase of the large scale, mixed-use
project. According to the Land Development Regulations, stealth towers are currently defined (in
Chapter 10) and are required to be architecturally compatible with existing buildings and / or
structures on site. They shall be consistent with the character of existing uses on site. The accessory
equipment associated with stealth facilities shall not be readily identifiable and in no case shall a
stealth facility exceed 150 feet in height. The Land Development Regulations define a stealth facility
as follows:
"any telecommunications facility which is designed to blend into the surrounding
environment and which is incorporated into and is compatible with uses otherwise
permissible on site. Examples of stealth facilities include, but are not limited to,
architecturally screened roof-mounted antennas, antennas integrated into architectural
elements, and telecommunication and/or personal wireless services towers designed to
look like light poles, power poles, clock towers or trees."
It is important to note that the Land Development Regulations require a minimum separation distance
of 250 feet between any telecommunication faCility and the nearest residential district or residential
portion of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). It further requires that towers be spaced a minimum of
750 feet apart. The applicant has informed staff that the proposed facility would comply with this
basic requirement with the understanding that the nearest (exclusively) residentially-zoning district
(i.e. Sky Lake zoned, R-1-A Single-family Residential) would be located over 900 feet away from the
planned clock tower location. In fact, the previously approved master plan for Renaissance Commons
(see Exhibit "D") identifies the anticipated location of the clock tower, which would agree with the
applicant's assertion. However, the applicant proposes a separation distance of 50 feet between a
telecommunication facility and a residential component of the SMU district, exclusive of integrated
mixed-use buildings. It is important to note that according to the Telecommunication Act of 1996, "no
state or local government may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal
wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the
extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions". Since
this is the case, the city's Land Development Regulations cannot mandate the distance separation
(between the facility and residential uses) due to the perceived ill effects of the radio frequencies on
neighboring residential properties. However, a distance separation standard has value in preventing a
proliferation of towers, which may negatively impact the visual environment, and therefore should
remain in the absence of pure stealth requirements. As for the SMU zoning district, where the stealth
standard would apply to architectural compatibility, the more relevant issue regarding cell towers now
becomes their proposed height to ensure compliance with FCC safety standards rather than their
proposed distance from residential uses.
The applicant states two (2) underlying reasons for this code review request (see Exhibit "8"). They
are as follows:
1. The lack of available property that is properly zoned that would allow another
telecommunication facility; and
2. The lack of available property located in proximity to the existing, non-conforming tower that
Page 3
CDRV 05-008
contains no void in the radio-frequency coverage.
The applicant is requesting this code amendment with the assumption that a new telecommunication
facility would undergo exhaustive review during the time when a formal conditional use application is
made and that said facility would comply with all applicable regulations. A conditional use is a use that
would not be appropriate generally, without restriction, throughout a zoning classification or district.
Such uses however, if controlled as to area, location, number, or relation to the neighborhood, would
promote public appearance, comfort, convenience, general welfare, good order, health, morals,
prosperity, and safety of the city. The standards for evaluating a conditional use include but are not
limited to the following: Ingress / egress, off-street parking, refuse and service areas, utilities,
screening and buffering, signs, setbacks and open spaces, general compatibility, height, and economic
effect. Staff acknowledges that an unsightly, non-conforming telecommunication facility already exists
within the SMU property and that its removal and replacement with a stealth facility, located within the
clock tower, would only positively impact the subject property and outlying area. Finally, this code
amendment affects only a limited number of properties, all of which, lie west of Interstate 95 and
exclusively under the reviewing authority of the Planning and Development Board.
RECOMMENDATION
It is staff's opinion that the proposed amendments to the Land Development Regulations are the
minimum necessary to achieve the desired results. This is due to the limited number of anticipated
future telecommunication facilities needed within the SMU zoning district and outlying areas, coupled
with the fact that a stealth facility, in this case, would be handsomely housed within the clock tower of
the previously planned mixed-use community. Should other towers be sited at a later date upon any
SMU designated lands, they too would be required to be of a "stealth" design, consistent with the
design characteristics of surrounding uses. Therefore staff recommends approval of the proposed
code review application. Community Redevelopment Agency review and approval is not required.
Exhibits
MR/elj
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\SPECPROJ\CODE REVIEW\CDRV 05-008 SMU Stealth Towers\Staff Report.doc
Exhloit 'A' - Location I\Irap
312.5 0
625
1,250
1,875
2,500
I Feet
..'
.
EXHIBIT "B"
~~ Ruden
~II McClosky
mrJ'~2 ;'m!
L____..<_u ""___"_
Pl'.1 ',' I ::r~ .' "D
., . > ~ r' r
!
--,,~.~~,.'" ''''-'-<''o_~_'.__r
222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE
SUITE 800
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401-6112
(561) 838-4542
FAX: (561) 514-3442
KIM.GWCASTRO@RUDEN.COM
February 9, 2005
Telecommunication Tower Regulations Modifications
Compson Associates of Boynton, LLC (the "Applicant") is requesting reVISIons to
Chapter 10, Telecommunication Towers and Antennas, and to Chapter 2, Zoning, of the City of
Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations ("LDR") to allow stealth communication towers
within the Suburban Mixed Use ("SMU") zoning district subject to conditional use approval and
compliance with performance standards.
A nonconforming tower exists on the Renaissance Commons SMU property. The
Applicant desires to remove the tower, which is otherwise located in the middle of the new
mixed-use community. The telecommunication providers ("Providers") utilizing the existing
tower at Renaissance Commons have evaluated other sites to relocate their facilities, but the
Providers are finding two problems: 1) lack of available property zoned with a district that
allows communication towers and 2) lack of available property located in proximity to the
existing, non-conforming tower so that no voids in system coverage are created. The nearest
zoning district is Planned Industrial District (PID), in which towers are permissible, but a
communication tower already exists on this property, and there is not sufficient room for co-
location of the Providers' facilities on the existing tower. Property zoned Industrial (MI) is too
far away from the current location to provide service coverage.
Relocation of the existing Providers' facilities within Renaissance Commons is a viable
solution to maintain and improve existing coverage. The Applicant's proposed LDR
modifications require stealth technology to be employed within the SMU district, and require
conditional use approval to ensure compatibility with the SMU uses and design standards.
The requested revisions to Chapter 10 and Chapter 2 would facilitate the removal of an
old-style, metal-framed communication tower from the middle of the Renaissance Commons
project. A new stealth tower would be concealed as part of the clock tower feature in Phase VI
of the development. This stealth tower will be requested in a subsequent conditional use/site
plan petition. \
WPB:197496:1
RUDEN, McCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A.
CARACAS. FT. IAUDERDALE . MIAMI. NAPLES. ORlANDO. PORT ST. LUCIE. SARASOTA. ST. PETERSBURG. TALlAHASSEE. TAMPA. WEST PALM BEACH
EXHIBIT "C"
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH,
FLORIDA AMENDING LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS, AMENDING CHAPTER 10,
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNAS,
SECTION 3, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING
REGULATIONS FOR THE PROVISION OF STEALTH
FACILITIES WITIllN THE SUBURBAN MIXED USE ZONING
DISTRICT, AND AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ZONING,
SECTION 6, SUBSECTION "G", SUBURBAN MIXED USE
ZONING DISTRICT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERMITTING
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNAS
SUBJECT TO CRITIERA; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS,
SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION AND AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the proposed revisions to the Telecommunication Towers and Antennas
provisions and the Suburban Mixed Use zoning district of the City of Boynton Beach Code of
Ordinances are amendments to the Land Development Regulations requested by Compson
Associates; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission deems the adoption of this Ordinance to be in the best
interests of the citizens and residents of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, TIL~T:
Section 1. The foregoing whereas clauses are true and correct and are now ratified and
confirmed by the City Commission.
Section 2. That Chapter 10, Telecommunication Towers and Antennas, Section 3,
Subsection A is hereby amended by adding a new paragraph "5" as follows:
5. Suburban Mixed Use (SMU) zoning district. Any communication tower in the SMU
EXHIBIT C
district shall be a stealth facility that is designed consistent with the architecture and theme of the
SMU district. Stealth facilities contained within structural or architectural features? ~~h as clock
....(' ....,. ..'__n
/
considered within the SMU design standards. The development standards of apter 10 shall
govern said tower or antenna.
Section 3.
That Chapter 10, Telecommunication Towers and Antennas, Section 3,
Subsection C.3.c. is hereby amended by adding a new provision as follows:
c. Monopole, lattice or guyed telecommunication towers shall not be permitted within two
hundred and fifty (250) feet of any residential district or residential portion of a PUD. In a SMU
district. a communication tower shall not be permitted within two hundred fifty feet (250') of any
adiacent residential zoning district or within fifty feet (50') of a residential component of the
'"
SMU district. exclusive of integrated mixed-use buildings.
Section 4.
That Chapter 10, Telecommunication Towers and Antennas, Section 3,
Subsection C.7.a. is hereby amended by adding a new provision as follows:
7. Buffering
a. An eight (8) foot fence or wall constructed in accordance with the Land Development
Regulations, as measured from the finished grade of the site, shall be required around the base of
each communication tower, tower service facilities, and each guy anchor. Access to the
communication tower and its facilities shall be through a locked gate. The requirement for an
eight foot (8') fence shall not be applicable if: 1) said communication tower is a stealth facility
integrated into the architecture or structural composition of a building. such as a clock tower
located within a SMU district~ and 2) access to any equipment or electrical power source i~ gated
and locked for public safety.
EXHIBIT C
Section 5. That Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 6. "G", Table 6G-l, is hereby amended by
adding the words as follows:
TABLE 6G-1
SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED PRINCIPAL, ACCESSORY AND
CONDITIONAL USES
USE GROUPIUSE SMU
ZONE
Residential or Lodging Use Group
Bed and Breakfast C
Hotel C
Home Occupation p
Mobile Home N
Motel N
Residential, Single Family Detached P
Residential, Single Family Attached p
Residential, Multi-Family p
Temporary Sales Office p
Temporary Model Residences p
Live/Work Units pS
Boarding and Rooming House (except where provided by state law) N
Accessory Unit p
Communication Tower or Antenna C'
Government Office/Civic Center/Library P
Recreation (outdoor) C
Museum p
House of Worship pI
Police or Fire-Rescue Station P
Postal Center (retail sales only) p:t
Post Office p
Public Park p
Public Parking Lot or Garage p
REMAINDER OF TABLE UNCHANGED
Restriction Notes:
9 Stealth facilities only. intelmlted into the architecture and/or structural comoosition of the project and
subject to compliance with develooment standards and relmlations (setbacks. height bufferine. etc.) of Chapter 10.
Section 6.
Each and every other provision of the Land Development Regulations not
herein specifically amended, shall remain in full force and effect as originally adopted.
Section 7.
All laws and ordinances applying to the City of Boynton Beach in conflict
with any provisions of thb ~ dinance are hereby repealed.
Section 8. Should any section or provision of this Ordinance or any portion thereofbe
declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
remainder of this Ordinance.
Section 9. Authority is hereby given to codify this Ordinance.
Section 10. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately.
EXHIBIT C
FIRST READING THIS day of , 20_.
SECOND, FINAL READING AND PASSAGE this _ day of
20
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
Mayor
Vice Mayor
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
ATTEST:
City Clerk
~--~---
--~~
-~---~
I
,
i
~ ~e
-i
m
i\J
1)
r
l>
! ~z
,~
SI
I,
IF
~
9liJ
o
=>
~_ E)SHIBIID
I
, I i
i i~) ~~_. -"~~~"~I~ 't~Amil.i~jJ ~':1i
,i ;:;,~ -, ~ I': ,-.:, I' ~ I ~l-~~" r :-It I ,~ ~r,.: ii,
t;, ,,~:I, ,., Ii 'I ~ _ ..~ ~.~ f ',' Lo J j . I
;j , ! , ! i I' I ' 1 b: ..g= _~ ~ j ,,, >=;t '-=4, .'. : !
, f Ii" I it -1 r'lf i' . ~-~ .-f r~,,~liilr:' iil
1/ ,,,.e , i, ' I' ~ .:' c::j ~ ,. ( I ~ I ' Ii
Il!f~;~i ......... ~h;lt ~ ~'~ III~: ~ ~~,~ _ ' Ri]~li,^ i ~i
)/ 1~ /1-- '.:'1.~.Jt!1~ "11~:I'1 (~ r ' 11H I 'II - -10 C~ ~ .. .,1 II
if . l:ii!)~' ,==: :'1 ~I :::E" ,~r . I
! 1.1 ,..-;1/," "" , , , ;. ,I~ :t~WlliJ~~ ~ _ ~ I I~
lId! ,\ ~ ,. !I=
, '\ I'!~I 1,= :;r;1;';'~--11 "'1" ,'~ ,n,,:,II' '~. ":1" :;'-1"-:
,Iii m:: :~ Iii :~ f' . = 1 '
, III! ~~,. ~ I III I I .'J$:i[ ~:#1 I IL' I t::.'~1 I I';!:
I I, , Illiii~'i ~ .(i i Iii : !J~';~ ii!= fJ!I~L ~~" ,I ~~ f'
'III l'll':J =.,u ,<111 I ::c;;DI ~= =ilf-''=' , "
r~ ~f"'.::.i!".~, "-J , cL ~ .1:_":-<;- i:::;:L I: III
i! I'll:' ~- === ~I! I, I I ~'" ~91I111~ ,..w ::~[. I 0jl.:
. 'I -~Ioii...= II' ~' 1_' ""
I t..o@ p~ @ ,'.=' . i .--i: I ,i
'I I !!""Tf"~ I '1!;::.:......=1' ~___ :1':" I~ 1'1+
i , I :::rD, ' / I ';",,' "I' '
I'.\' ./ " 11,k:r::r-~ ~~, ''A ~~~ . J:~:i .!!'..r!~ ~ ,I :,il,
by2~- ::~"'~,' -D. "D:iet I fl 1 -j~ ,j ,
~-_~~ ~ /' Fbt ~iIIE ~D - ~ g
"f--(.: L_ . I!' 'r li ~"' I.J ,f.,' . ~I II
."-. . ~ ~ I I " .::.~. =:t j III'
=;1 ~~i r r i ;' (~tlll . lmimiin) I:';i~:! 1 1:-:1'
~J:j~ ~!l'l' l~r r~l"frl~l'" ~Iiil: '1,.111=
, ltH;.:-' ij ljii\11 ~": o~ · ";.,~;"' 'I. fi 'TI7'11t 11 i
~1 )~dill.' ! · ~".. c~; 'N .' , Ij i
,:,~:~. - - [,~=:;j 'f ':'~t~, T'Y ...... .In...l -- r' I
'~ VI~~f, ~ IIIJ I '~~' "III J I,; r; ~ 1~~ .=I~, I~f:! I .I'
1'\ I..~ fttr!tttJ ~~:.~= {i< 0 ~ :.. , I
~f\' /, '11111 IIIIII!II ~,I'- ~,~ Do ~",.Ii
,\\" \ I 1 . ,
j\ = J Ii'; I
,'\ , , 'r I ,,- .. , j , I w!
\1\ I I 1,1;'
I'J ~.~ _ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 'm ,0 --"--~:.~ I [II
'-j
'"
\,
Iii !iIi i i liii !!ii;:;j !
II "PIll'lil'!!!! I
l , !hH II,l:
ji 'I ! / Ii! : lli!'~
I! , . Ii' g'll
I' 1,1 "I
II I Ii
ua;1; i:III!;l;
III I! !1.iI1illll I
i!!!ljilldl!I:!~'1 ' !
ill! ;, ,Ug!!;, .. Hll
! :'I;:llbi1j ~.!!! !Il
I! I., l!! '
"If
llC-- ,,11 -~!
~ ~ll c:::=:::J..J
J? ~: I~I I
i' .. II " !:;;rll!~
i\ i! Iii ,~-- J'
1~~~ T~'
If II' I 'I !I' :;' .... F
; ,,- ,'- ,R
I!, II [l1 ,ili 111I"i I
:.Jj Ii ;lll! 'I
, i!
IiI ml!ii!~lllilii!lll!il
," ~1'1'11 i' I!
"F. li!ll! i'I' I
, lil!I!!! i.1 II
l .1
.
;a"~I~
Ii!
,.
II!
"ell
III
!Il
'I
II.
;,1
!I
I!
'1"1'1
Ii:: I
I!l:!&~
l.!ll - :
i!!I',. II !!,I!,IW
I!'I : Ii llil!
'! I I '!.pll
!ili, liliil/
ll;'l i i!
,.111, i i j
!
MOURIZ
SALAZAR
ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS
IiO\)RIZ/SAlAZARa"~TES,lNC.
1'S~5 SOlJTl< W(S' 10<11t> STMET
"""'''. "-0...... ~"06
(~05) 21J_~"
RENAISSANCE COMMONS PHASE VI
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
""
Compson Associates of Boynton II. L.L.C.
~~;::'~~,1; ~.R. -:,~~o~~,~t ::;,n;;~ . ~,1~.~7;t~;~,~ ...~~. "', ,,':'e'h~"~;: ','L'.":," ,~,:;'<o..:' t d~~;:: ~~,'7:"~'
Johnson, Eric
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Rumpf, Michael
Thursday, May 19, 200510:27 AM
Johnson, Eric
RE: Tower code review
see how that sounds when you clean it up removing my name from the sentances.
m--Original Messagemn
From: Johnson, Eric
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 20059:37 AM
To: Rumpf, Michael
Subject: Tower code review
It is important to note that the Land Development Regulations require a minimum separation distance of
250 feet between any telecommunication facility and the nearest residential district or residential portion of
a Planned Unit Development (PUD). It further requires that towers be spaced a minimum of 750 feet
apart. The applicant has informed staff that the proposed facility would comply with this basic
requirement with the understanding that the nearest (exclusively) residentially-zoning district (i.e. Sky
Lake zoned, R-1-A Single-family Residential) would be located over 900 feet away from the planned clock
tower location. In fact, the previously approved master plan for Renaissance Commons (see Exhibit "0")
identifies the anticipated location of the clock tower, which would agree with the applicant's assertion.
However, the applicant proposes a separation distance of 50 feet between a telecommunication facilitv and
a residential component of the SMU district exclusive of integrated mixed-use buildings. It is important to
note that according to the Telecommunication Act of 1996, "no state or local government may regulate the
placement construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio freauencv emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the
Commission's regulations concerning such emissions". Since this is the case. the citv's Land Development
Regulations fRumpf, Michael] cannot mandate the distance seperation (between the facility and residential
uses) due to the potential ill effects of the radio frequencies on neighboring residential properties.
[Rumpf, Michael] However a distance seperation standard has value in preventing a proliferation of towers which
may negatively impact the visual environment, and therefore should remain in the absence of pure stealth
requirements. As for the SMU district, where the stealth standard will apply to architectural compatibility, the more
relavant issue fRumpf, Michael] regardingJRumpf, Michael] cellJRumpf, Michael] towers now becomes
their proposed height fRumpf, Michael] to ensure compliance with FCC safety standards, rather than their
proposed distance from residential uses.
The applicant states two (2) underlying reasons for this code review request (see Exhibit "B''). They are
as follows:
1. The lack of available property that is properly zoned that would allow another telecommunication
facility; and
2. The lack of available property located in proximity to the existing, non-conforming tower that
contains no void in the radio-frequency coverage.
The applicant is requesting this code amendment with the assumption that a new telecommunication
facility would undergo exhaustive review during the time when a formal conditional use application is
made and that said facility would comply with all applicable regulations. A conditional use is a use that
would not be appropriate generally, without restriction, throughout a zoning classification or district. Such
uses however, if controlled as to area, location, number, or relation to the neighborhood, would promote
public appearance, comfort, convenience, general welfare, good order, health, morals, prosperity, and
safety of the city. The standards for evaluating a conditional use include but are not limited to the
1
following: Ingress / egress, off-street parking, refuse and service areas, utilities, screening and buffering,
signs, setbacks and open spaces, general compatibility, height, and economic effect. Staff acknowledges
that an unsightly, non-conforming telecommunication facility already exists within the SMU property and
that its removal and replacement with a stealth facility, located within the clock tower, would only
positively impact the subject property and outlying area. Finally, this code amendment affects only a
limited number of properties, all of which, lie west of Interstate 95 and exclusively under the review
authority of the Planning and Development Board.
2
~f. Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Glas-Castro, Kimberly [Kimberly.Glas-Castro@ruden.com]
Tuesday, May 17, 20051:17 PM
Rumpf, Michael
RE: Tele Tower Code Amendment Application
We'll be delivering the letters and as much info (RF data, etc) as we
can this afternoon
-----Original Message-----
From: Rumpf, Michael [mailto:RumpfM@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us]
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 3:26 PM
To: Glas-Castro, Kimberly
Subject: Re: Tele Tower Code Amendment Application
Understood. So except for consent from a minimum of 51% property owners,
we are good to go. Of course keep in mind that the only substantiated
justification for the request is the simple existance of the current
tower on site. No other proven evidence. As long as they comfortable
with.
Mike
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
-----Original Message-----
From: Glas-Castro, Kimberly <Kimberly.Glas-Castro@ruden.com>
To: Rumpf, Michael <RumpfM@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us>
Sent: Mon May 16 15:16:59 2005
Subject: RE: Tele Tower Code Amendment Application
I don't think the information will be compiled by tomorrow --- but
Compson has not submitted their site-specific proposali just the request
for the text change that would facilitate such a proposal at Renaissance
-----Original Message-----
From: Rumpf, Michael [mailto:RumpfM@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us]
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 2:43 PM
To: Glas-Castro, Kimberly
Subject: Tele Tower Code Amendment Application
Just checking on requested items. Tomorrow night is the Commission
review of this item and was hopeful we'd have it by then. Mike
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
-----Original Message-----
From: Glas-Castro, Kimberly <Kimberly.Glas-Castro@ruden.com>
To: Richard Foreman <Richard.Foreman@sembler.com>i John Corbett
<johncorb@bellsouth.net>i Andrea Troutman
<atroutman@pindertroutman.com>i Miskel, Bonnie
<Bonnie.Miskel@ruden.com>i hugo@unruhconsulting.com
<hugo@unruhconsulting.com>i rnhlaw@bellsouth.net <rnhlaw@bellsouth.net>i
Matras, Hanna <MatrasH@ci.boynton-beach.fl.uS>i Hudson, Dick (Orran)
<HudsonD@ci.boynton-beach.fl.uS>i Rumpf, Michael
<RumpfM@ci.boynton-beach.fl.uS>i greeneq@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us
<greeneq@ci.boynton-beach.fl.uS>i livergoodj@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us
<livergoodj@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us>
CC: hcduffy@sembler.com <hcduffy@sembler.com>i jfilippelli@sembler.com
1
<jfilippelli@sembler.com>i jcomparato@compson.com
<jcomparato@compson.com>
Sent: Fri May 06 17:2B:04 2005
Subject: Working DRAFT LPA Staff Report
For your weekend reading pleasure
<<CRALLS LPA Report.DOC>> <<Exhibit 3>>
you'll see blanks, notes and commentary please review, provide
additional or corrective information, etc.
Kim Glas-Castro, AICP
Certified Land Planner
Ruden McClosky
'222 Lakeview Avenue #800
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
telephone: (561) 838-4542
in Broward: (954) 761-2926
fax: (561) 514-3442
kim.glascastro@ruden.com
NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message
contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you
are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert
to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to
it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us
immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at 954-764-6660 and delete
this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a
forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the
contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced
by the sender.
NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message
contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you
are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert
to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to
it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us
immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at 954-764-6660 and delete
this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a
forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the
contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced
by the sender.
NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message contains
confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate
this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
notify us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at 954-764-6660 and delete this
message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a
reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments
may not have been produced by the sender.
2
Johnson, Eric
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Rumpf, Michael
Monday, May 16, 2005 5:47PM
Johnson, Eric
Fw: Tele Tower Code Amendment Application
Eric, we won't get all info requested. I hope you sense the tone in my email to her. We
can only present in the report what we know, perhaps emphasizing the increase in
population in the area.. . and the minimal locations where they are currently allowed.
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
-----Original Message-----
From: Rumpf, Michael <RumpfM@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us>
To: 'Kimberly.Glas-Castro@ruden.com' <Kimberly.Glas-Castro@ruden.com>
Sent: Mon May 16 16:43:33 2005
Subject: Re: Tele Tower Code Amendment Application
Should be one of last items under consent.
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
-----Original Message-----
From: Glas-Castro, Kimberly <Kimberly.Glas-Castro@ruden.com>
To: Rumpf, Michael <RumpfM@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us>
Sent: Mon May 16 15:44:44 2005
Subject: RE: Tele Tower Code Amendment Application
I don't see it on the agenda, will it come up under City Manager's
items?
-----Original Message-----
From: Rumpf, Michael [mailto:RumpfM@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us]
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 3:26 PM
To: Glas-Castro, Kimberly
Subject: Re: Tele Tower Code Amendment Application
Understood. So except for consent from a minimum of 51% property owners,
we are good to go. Of course keep in mind that the only substantiated
justification for the request is the simple existance of the current
tower on site. No other proven evidence. As long as they comfortable
with.
Mike
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
-----Original Message-----
From: Glas-Castro, Kimberly <Kimberly.Glas-Castro@ruden.com>
To: Rumpf, Michael <RumpfM@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us>
Sent: Mon May 16 15:16:59 2005
Subject: RE: Tele Tower Code Amendment Application
I don't think the information will be compiled by tomorrow --- but
Compson has not submitted their site-specific proposal; just the request
for the text change that would facilitate such a proposal at Renaissance
-----Original Message-----
From: Rumpf, Michael [mailto:RumpfM@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us]
1
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 2:43 PM
To: Glas-Castro, Kimberly
Subject: Tele Tower Code Amendment Application
Just checking on requested items. Tomorrow night is the Commission
review of this item and was hopeful we'd have it by then. Mike
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
-----Original Message-----
From: Glas-Castro, Kimberly <Kimberly.Glas-Castro@ruden.com>
To: Richard Foreman <Richard.Foreman@sembler.com>i John Corbett
<johncorb@bellsouth.net>i Andrea Troutman
<atroutman@pindertroutman.com>i Miskel, Bonnie
<Bonnie.Miskel@ruden.com>i hugo@unruhconsulting.com
<hugo@unruhconsulting.com>i rnhlaw@bellsouth.net <rnhlaw@bellsouth.net>i
Matras, Hanna <MatrasH@ci.boynton-beach.fl.uS>i Hudson, Dick (Orran)
<HudsonD@ci.boynton-beach.fl.uS>i Rumpf, Michael
<RumpfM@ci.boynton-beach.fl.uS>i greeneq@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us
<greeneq@ci.boynton-beach.fl.uS>i livergoodj@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us
<livergoodj@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us>
CC: hcduffy@sembler.com <hcduffy@sembler.com>i jfilippelli@sembler.com
<jfilippelli@sembler.com>i jcomparato@compson.com
<jcomparato@compson.com>
Sent: Fri May 06 17:28:04 2005
Subject: Working DRAFT LPA Staff Report
For your weekend reading pleasure
<<CRALLS LPA Report.DOC>> <<Exhibit 3>>
you'll see blanks, notes and commentary please review, provide
additional or corrective information, etc.
Kim Glas-Castro, AICP
Certified Land Planner
Ruden McClosky
222 Lakeview Avenue #800
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
telephone: (561) 838-4542
in Broward: (954) 761-2926
fax: (561) 514-3442
kim.glascastro@ruden.com
NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message
contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you
are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert
to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to
it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us
immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at 954-764-6660 and delete
this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a
forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the
contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced
by the sender.
NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message
2
contains confidential info~~ation that may be legally privileged. If you
are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert
to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to
it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us
immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at 954-764-6660 and delete
this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a
forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the
contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced
by the sender.
NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message contains
confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate
this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
notify us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at 954-764-6660 and delete this
message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a
reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments
may not have been produced by the sender.
3
~f. Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Glas-Castro, Kimberly [Kimberly.Glas-Castro@ruden.com]
Monday, May 16, 2005 3:45 PM
Rumpf, Michael
RE: Tele Tower Code Amendment Application
I don't see it on the agenda, will it come up under City Manager's
items?
-----Original Message-----
From: Rumpf, Michael [mailto:RumpfM@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us]
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 3:26 PM
To: Glas-Castro, Kimberly
Subject: Re: Tele Tower Code Amendment Application
Understood. So except for consent from a minimum of 51% property owners,
we are good to go. Of course keep in mind that the only substantiated
justification for the request is the simple existance of the current
tower on site. No other proven evidence. As long as they comfortable
with.
Mike
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
-----Original Message-----
From: Glas-Castro, Kimberly <Kimberly.Glas-Castro@ruden.com>
To: Rumpf, Michael <RumpfM@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us>
Sent: Mon May 16 15:16:59 2005
Subject: RE: Tele Tower Code Amendment Application
I don't think the information will be compiled by tomorrow --- but
Compson has not submitted their site-specific proposali just the request
for the text change that would facilitate such a proposal at Renaissance
-----Original Message-----
From: Rumpf, Michael [mailto:RumpfM@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us]
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 2:43 PM
To: Glas-Castro, Kimberly
Subject: Tele Tower Code Amendment Application
Just checking on requested items. Tomorrow night is the Commission
review of this item and was hopeful we'd have it by then. Mike
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
-----Original Message-----
From: Glas-Castro, Kimberly <Kimberly.Glas-Castro@ruden.com>
To: Richard Foreman <Richard.Foreman@sembler.com>i John Corbett
<johncorb@bellsouth.net>i Andrea Troutman
<atroutman@pindertroutman.com>i Miskel, Bonnie
<Bonnie.Miskel@ruden.com>i hugo@unruhconsulting.com
<hugo@unruhconsulting.com>i rnhlaw@bellsouth.net <rnhlaw@bellsouth.net>i
Matras, Hanna <MatrasH@ci.boynton-beach.fl.uS>i Hudson, Dick (Orran)
<HudsonD@ci.boynton-beach.fl.uS>i Rumpf, Michael
<RumpfM@ci.boynton-beach.fl.uS>i greeneq@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us
<greeneq@ci.boynton-beach.fl.uS>i livergoodj@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us
<livergoodj@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us>
CC: hcduffy@sembler.com <hcduffy@sembler.com>i jfilippelli@sembler.com
1
.
<jfilippelli@sembler.com>i ]comparato@compson.com
<jcomparato@compson.com>
Sent: Fri May 06 17:28:04 2005
Subject: Working DRAFT LPA Staff Report
For your weekend reading pleasure
<<CRALLS LPA Report.DOC>> <<Exhibit 3>>
you'll see blanks, notes and commentary please review, provide
additional or corrective information, etc.
Kim Glas-Castro, AICP
Certified Land Planner
Ruden McClosky
222 Lakeview Avenue #800
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
telephone: (561) 838-4542
in Broward: (954) 761-2926
fax: (561) 514-3442
kim.glascastro@ruden.com
NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message
contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you
are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert
to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to
it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us
immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at 954-764-6660 and delete
this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a
forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the
contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced
by the sender.
NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message
contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you
are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert
to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to
it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us
immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at 954-764-6660 and delete
this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a
forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the
contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced
by the sender.
NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message contains
confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate
this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
notify us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at 954-764-6660 and delete this
message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a
reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments
may not have been produced by the sender.
2
Johnson, Eric
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Rumpf, Michael
Monday, May 16, 2005 12:00 PM
Johnson, Eric
Re: Code Review
Welcome back. Look forward to hearing you stories.
Yes, already have. Just need to follow up. I should have an email from her in my
blackberry easing the ability to que up mail to her.
Should not be an issue given magnitude owned by Compson, and partner Sembler, who I'm sure
would consent. But you are wise to ask; thanks for reminder.
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
-----Original Message-----
From: Johnson, Eric <JohnsonE@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us>
To: Rumpf, Michael <RumpfM@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us>
Sent: Mon May 16 11:49:26 2005
Subject: Code Review
Mike,
Are we going to request Kim Castro provide us with a list of SMU property owners, giving
her their consent to change the code to allow for the stealth facility in the SMU zoning
district? Doesn't Sember own SMU property? If so, what if Kim is unable to provide us
with a list before Wednesday- should we postpone the CDRV until she does provide us with a
list and consent? Thanks, Eric
1
Johnson, Eric
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Rumpf, Michael
Friday, May 06, 2005 11 :20 AM
Johnson, Eric
Re: Stealth Tower code review
That is exactly what I requested from Kim. You are correct. MR.
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
-----Original Message-----
From: Johnson, Eric <JohnsonE@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us>
To: Rumpf, Michael <RumpfM@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us>
CC: Breese, Ed <BreeseE@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us>
Sent: Fri May 06 11:03:00 2005
Subject: Stealth Tower code review
Mike,
Isn't part of our review for a telecommunication facility is to ask the applicant if they
could provide us something (in writing) that suggests that there are no other properties,
properly zoned elsewhere within the immediate area that could accommodate said facility
and that the subject location (and subsequently the zoning district) is the only location
(and zoning district) in which to locate based on the findings of the RF engineer?
I know that was a long question but shouldn't we have something like that in writing prior
to conducting review to allow in SMU?
Thanks, Eric
1
Message
Page 1 of 4
Rumpf, Michael
From: Rumpf, Michael
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 20055:31 PM
To: 'Glas-Castro, Kimberly'
Subject: RE: Cell Tower provisions
Sorry for the intermittant shooting of questions, but time isn't on my side.
Another question, "What is the current tower capacity and what capacity will the clock tower (tower) have for
colocations?"
Thanks again, Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Glas-Castro, Kimberly [mailto:Kimberly.Glas-Castro@ruden.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04,20055:05 PM
To: Rumpf, Michael
Subject: RE: Cell Tower provisions
the Winchester site because it is SMU? - I don't know of any tower proposals that will be made
there, so they should be able to write a letter
-----Original Message-----
From: Rumpf, Michael [mailto:RumpfM@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 5:04 PM
To: Glas-Castro, Kimberly
Subject: RE: Cell Tower provisions
Thanks! I'm trying to keep it on schedule by pushing it on the May 17th meeting. Your
assistance is appreciated.
Oh, our code requires that petitions from the "outside" for code amendments are allowed,
with endorsement from 51 % or more of the affected property owners. I don't think we have a
problem here but just to get the application cleaned up, please obtain letterhead from the
other property owners (between Winchester's site and Renaissance) approving the request,
to comprise the minimum approvals necessary.
Let me know if you have any questions, Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Glas-Castro, Kimberly [mailto:Kimberly.Glas-Castro@ruden.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04,20054:34 PM
To: Rumpf, Michael
Subject: RE: Cell Tower provisions
I passed this along to Carl Klepper to see what they already have in their files
-----Original Message-----
From: Rumpf, Michael [mailto:RumpfM@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04,20054:23 PM
To: Glas-Castro, Kimberly
Subject: RE: Cell Tower provisions
5/17/2005
Message
..
Kim, how quickly can you provide me with information on tower owner,
service provider(s), and RF data indicating need, and a location map with
the other sitesltowers that are referenced in your cover letter?
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Glas-Castro, Kimberly [mailto:Kimberly.Glas-
Castro@ruden.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 3:47 PM
To: Rumpf, Michael
Subject: RE: Cell Tower provisions
okay - we'll put the 17th on our calendar to be ready, if
needed
-----Original Message-----
From: Rumpf, Michael [mailto:RumpfM@ci.boynton-
beach.fl.us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04,20053:39 PM
To: Glas-Castro, Kimberly
Subject: RE: Cell Tower provisions
We are in transition regarding the processing of text
amendments, and may have to make a quick detour
to the Commission on May 17th for preliminary
review. But the original schedule was May 24th P &
D and 2nd meeting in June for Commission (consent
andlor First Reading).
-----Original Message-----
From: Glas-Castro, Kimberly
[mailto: Kimberly .Glas-
Castro@ruden.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 3:02
PM
To: Rumpf, Michael
Subject: Cell Tower provisions
When are Comparato's proposed Cell
Tower regulation modifications being
considered by P&D and City
Commission?
Kim Glas-Castro, AICP
Certified Land Planner
Ruden McClosky
222 Lakeview A venue #800
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
telephone: (561) 838-4542
in Broward: (954) 761-2926
fax: (561) 514-3442
kim.glascastro@ruden.com
5/1712005
Page 2 of 4
l\{l:essage
Page 1 of 4
Rumpf, Michael
From: Rumpf, Michael
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 5:09 PM
To: 'Glas-Castro, Kimberly'
Subject: RE: Cell Tower provisions
Correct. The affected parties would be any properties where the code change would/could apply, despite their
current plans to use it.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Glas-Castro, Kimberly [mailto:Kimberly.Glas-Castro@ruden.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 5:05 PM
To: Rumpf, Michael
Subject: RE: Cell Tower provisions
the Winchester site because it is SMU? - I don't know of any tower proposals that will be made
there, so they should be able to write a letter
-----Original Message-----
From: Rumpf, Michael [mailto:RumpfM@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04,20055:04 PM
To: Glas-Castro, Kimberly
Subject: RE: Cell Tower provisions
Thanks! I'm trying to keep it on schedule by pushing it on the May 17th meeting. Your
assistance is appreciated.
Oh, our code requires that petitions from the "outside" for code amendments are allowed,
with endorsement from 51 % or more of the affected property owners. I don't think we have a
problem here but just to get the application cleaned up, please obtain letterhead from the
other property owners (between Winchester's site and Renaissance) approving the request,
to comprise the minimum approvals necessary.
Let me know if you have any questions, Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Glas-Castro, Kimberly [mailto:Kimberly.Glas-Castro@ruden.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04,20054:34 PM
To: Rumpf, Michael
Subject: RE: Cell Tower provisions
I passed this along to Carl Klepper to see what they already have in their files
-----Original Message---n
From: Rumpf, Michael [mailto:RumpfM@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04,20054:23 PM
To: Glas-Castro, Kimberly
Subject: RE: Cell Tower provisions
Kim, how quickly can you provide me with information on tower owner,
service provider(s), and RF data indicating need, and a location map with
5/412005
Message
..
the other sites/towers that are referenced in your cover letter?
Mike
5/412005
-----Original Message-----
From: Glas-Castro, Kimberly [mailto:Kimberly.Glas-
Castro@ruden.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 3:47 PM
To: Rumpf, Michael
Subject: RE: Cell Tower provisions
okay - we'll put the 17th on our calendar to be ready, if
needed
-----Original Message-----
From: Rumpf, Michael [mailto:RumpfM@cLboynton-
beach.fl.us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 3:39 PM
To: Glas-Castro, Kimberly
Subject: RE: Cell Tower provisions
We are in transition regarding the processing of text
amendments, and may have to make a quick detour
to the Commission on May 17th for preliminary
review. But the original schedule was May 24th P &
D and 2nd meeting in June for Commission (consent
and/or First Reading).
-----Original Message-----
From: Glas-Castro, Kimberly
[mailto:Kimberly.Glas-
Castro@ruden.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04,20053:02
PM
To: Rumpf, Michael
Subject: Cell Tower provisions
When are Comparato's proposed Cell
Tower regulation modifications being
considered by P&D and City
Commission?
Kim Glas-Castro, AICP
Certified Land Planner
Ruden McClosky
222 Lakeview A venue #800
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
telephone: (561) 838-4542
in Broward: (954) 761-2926
fax: (561) 514-3442
kim.glascastro@ruden.com
Page 2 of 4
,I'
8.652
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House
and Senate)
TITLE VII--MISCELLANEODS PROVISIONS
SEC. 704. FACILITIES SITING; RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSION
STANDARDS.
(a) NATIONAL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SITING POLICY-
Section 332(c) (47 U.S.c. 332(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
'(7) PRESERVATION OF LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY-
'(A) GENERAL AUTHORITY- Except as provided in this
paragraph, 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.
'(B) LIMITATIONS-
'(i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and
modification of personal wireless service facilities by any
State or local government or instrumentality thereof--
'(I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among
providers of functionally equivalent services; and
'(II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of
prohibiting the provision of personal wireless
servIces.
'(ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof
shall act on any request for authorization to place,
construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities
within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly
filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into
account the nature and scope of such request.
'(iii) Any decision by a State or local government or
instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct,
or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in
writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in
a written record.
'(iv) No State or local government or instrumentality
thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and
modification of personal wireless service facilities on the
basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency
emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the
Commission's regulations concerning such emissions.
'(v) Any person adversely affected by any final action or
failure to act by a State or local government or any
instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this
subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or
failure to act, commence an action in any court of
competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide
such action on an expedited basis. Any person adversely
affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local
government or any instrumentality thereof that is
inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the Commission
for relief.
'(C) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this paragraph--
'(i) the term 'personal wireless services' means commercial
mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common
carrier wireless exchange access services;
'(ii) the term 'personal wireless service facilities' means
facilities for the provision of personal wireless services;
and
'(iii) the term 'unlicensed wireless service' means the
offering of telecommunications services using duly
authorized devices which do not require individual licenses,
but does not mean the provision of direct-to-home satellite
services (as defined in section 303(v)).'.
(b) RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS- Within 180 days after the enactment of
this Act, the Commission shall complete action in ET Docket 93-62 to prescribe
and make effective rules regarding the environmental effects of radio frequency
emISSIOns.
(c) AVAILABILITY OF PROPERTY- Within 180 days of the enactment of this
Act, the President or his designee shall prescribe procedures by which Federal
departments and agencies may make available on a fair, reasonable, and
nondiscriminatory basis, property, rights-of-way, and easements under their
control for the placement of new telecommunications services that are dependent,
in whole or in part, upon the utilization of Federal spectrum rights for the
transmission or reception of such services. These procedures may establish a
presumption that requests for the use of property, rights-of-way, and easements by
duly authorized providers should be granted absent unavoidable direct conflict
with the department or agency's mission, or the current or planned use of the
property, rights-of-way, and easements in question. Reasonable fees may be
charged to providers of such telecommunications services for use of property,
rights-of-way, and easements. The Commission shall provide technical support to
States to encourage them to make property, rights-of-way, and easements under
their jurisdiction available for such purposes.
ARE CELLULAR AND PCS TOWERS AND ANTENNAS SAFE?
Cellular radio services transmit using frequencies between 800 and 900 megahertz
(MHz). Transmitters in the Personal Communications Service (PCS) use frequencies
in the range of 1850-1990 MHz. Antennas used for cellular and PCS transmissions
are typically located on towers, water tanks or other elevated structures including
rooftops and the sides of buildings. The combination of antennas and associated
electronic equipment is referred to as a cellular or PCS "base station" or "cell site."
Typical heights for free-standing base station towers or structures are 50-200 feet. A
cellular base station may utilize several "omni-directional" antennas that look like
poles, 10 to 15 feet in length, although these types of antennas are becoming less
common in urban areas.
In urban and suburban areas, cellular and PCS service providers now more
commonly use "sector" antennas for their base stations. These antennas are
rectangular panels, e.g., about 1 by 4 feet in dimension, typically mounted on a
rooftop or other structure, but they are also mounted on towers or poles. The
antennas are usually arranged in three groups of three each. One antenna in each
group is used to transmit signals to mobile units (car phones or hand-held phones),
and the other two antennas in each group are used to receive signals from mobile
units.
At a given cell or PCS site, the total RF power that could be transmitted from each
transmitting antenna at a cell site depends on the number of radio channels
(transmitters) that have been authorized and the power of each transmitter.
Typically, for a cellular base station, a maximum of 21 channels per sector
(depending on the system) could be used. Thus, for a typical cell site utilizing sector
antennas, each of the three transmitting antennas could be connected to up to 21
transmitters for a total of 63 transmitters per site. When omni-directional antennas
are used, up to 96 transmitters could be implemented at a cell site, but this would be
very unusual. Furthermore, while a typical base station could have as many as 63
transmitters, not all of the transmitters would be expected to operate simultaneously
thus reducing overall emission levels. For the case of PCS base stations, fewer
transmitters are normally required due to the relatively greater number of base
stations.
The signals from a cellular or PCS base station antenna are essentially directed
toward the horizon in a relatively narrow pattern in the vertical plane. The radiation
pattern for an omni- directional antenna might be compared to a thin doughnut or
pancake centered around the antenna while the pattern for a sector antenna is fan-
shaped, like a wedge cut from a pie. As with all forms of electromagnetic energy, the
power density from a cellular or PCS transmitter decreases rapidly as one moves
away from the antenna. Consequently, normal ground-level exposure is much less
than exposures that might be encountered if one were very close to the antenna and
in its main transmitted beam.
Measurements made near typical cellular and PCS installations, especially those with
tower- mounted antennas, have shown that ground-level power densities are
thousands of times less than the FCC's limits for safe exposure. In fact, in order to
be exposed to levels at or near the FCC limits for cellular or PCS frequencies an
individual would essentially have to remain in the main transmitting beam (at the
height of the antenna) and within a few feet from the antenna. This makes it
extremely unlikely that a member of the general public could be exposed to RF levels
in excess of these guidelines due to cellular or PCS base station transmitters.
When cellular and PCS antennas are mounted at rooftop locations it is possible that
ambient RF levels could be greater than those typically encountered on the ground.
However, once again, exposures approaching or exceeding the safety guidelines are
only likely to be encountered very close to or directly in front of the antennas. For
sector-type antennas RF levels to the side and in back of these antennas are
insignificant. (Back to Index)
ARE CELLULAR AND OTHER RADIO TOWERS LOCATED NEAR HOMES OR
SCHOOLS SAFE FOR RESIDENTS AND STUDENTS?
As discussed above, radiofrequency emissions from antennas used for wireless
transmissions such as cellular and PCS signals result in exposure levels on the
ground that are typically thousands of times less than safety limits. These safety
limits were adopted by the FCC based on the recommendations of expert
organizations and endorsed by agencies of the Federal Government responsible for
health and safety. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that such towers could
constitute a potential health hazard to nearby residents or students.
Other antennas, such as those used for radio and television broadcast transmissions,
use power levels that are generally higher than those used for cellular and PCS
antennas. Therefore, in some cases there could be a potential for higher levels of
exposure on the ground. However, all broadcast stations are required to demonstrate
compliance with FCC safety guidelines, and ambient exposures to nearby persons
from such stations are typically well below FCC safety limits. (Back to Index)