Item 6 - PH/Cell Towers - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Jerome Lidz - 3 - . A, ugust 23, 2004 the setback requirements or by'elirnina~'ng the separation requirement where c°}/ocation on an ex/sting transmission structure isprec/udedby the setbacks. · The proposed new BOO-foot setback from resident/a/zones con#icts with existing subsections (5)(a) and (g)(d). Existing subsection (5)(a) perm/ts the construction o£new transmission toWers in the R- ! zone with a conditional use permit. The 800-foot setback requirement, however, effect/re, precludes the construction of new transmission towers in the R- I zone. Similar/y, exisD'ng subsection (g)(d) permits the City to grant a variance from the R- I zone'height restn'ction up to a maximum height o.£ 100 feet i£it wil{ e/irninate the need for additional transmission tower. Under the proposed new setback restriction, . hoWever, a wireless carrier may not increase the height oran existing transmission toWer in. the R- f zone. The provisions regarding variances from the setback requirements are too st#ngent, (discussed be/ow), to resolve these contTicts. (!) /,.nterYerence with Hmer._qenc_v Communication:. No new transmission towe~ nor an increase in the height oYan exi~ transm~sion tOwen shallbe pe~iHed unles~ the applicant can demonstrate the sati~n of ~e d~ that the tower wi//not inte~ere ~th or have any e~e~ on emer~en~'communication se~ces. A ~S Commen~: Federa//awpreempts the C/~ ofEu~e~e ~Om re~u/at/~ the constm~ion or operation of wire]ess commum~at]on ~ci]ities ba~ed on potent/a] /~te~rence be~een wireless communication. ~ci]ities and other devices,/nc]u~public sa~ devices used for emer~en~ communication. The Federal Communications Commies/on has exclusive j~dsd/~/on over radio ~equency inte~rence issues..See, e~., Freeman ~ Burn, ton Broadcasters, 204 3~ ], 32~ (2nd Cir. 2000); Southwestern Bell ~re/ess, Inc. ~ Johnson Coun~ BoardOf Coun~ Comm[ssioner~ ~ ~ F.3d ] ] 85, ] ] 90 (] ~ ~ir., ~ 999)] Anne Amndel Coun~ FC~ DA 03- 2] 9~, ~emoran~um O~inion an~ Or, er (July ], 2003). As the COu~e~]a[ned/n ~eeman: Congress did not intend by tYis provision [47 U.S.C. ~332(c)(7)] to repeal tYe FCC's exclusive jurisdi~ion over' RF int~6erence complaints. The statute's prese~ation 'of local power e~ends only to 'placement, con,rub/on and modification' of '~acilities.' In ligYt o~ th~ FCG's pe~asive regulation o~ ~roadcastin9 technology, th]~ provision is mo~ reasonably unde~tood a~ permit/n9 localities to exercis~ zonin9 power Yase~ on ma~ers not dire~ly' " regulated by tY~ FCC. We conclud~ that allow/n9 local zonin9 aut~oritie~ to con,it/on construe/on and u~ permits on any r~uir~m~nt to ~liminat~ or remedv RF inte6erence '~ands a~ an ob~t~cl~ to tY~ accompli~Ym~nt ~n~ ~x~cutio~ of th~ ~ull purpo~ and ob]~iw~ of Congress.' Freeman, 204 ~.3~ at 323 an~ 325. As a msu]~ the C[~ of ~ugene [ac~s author[~ to asse~ regulato~ authori~ over w/m/ess faci]it/es based on potent/a] inte~mnce with emergen~ Y:\WP~ATT~EUGEN~COMMENT LTR 082304.DOC '~ T~'4 7