05-27-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNDSSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21, 1997 (#1 - Telecommunications Ordinance - Continued) Alexander said the City could expect a challenge to their ordinance if the towers prove area inadequate due to structure capability, height, overcrowding, and coverage. This would result in the need for additional antenna sites to provide service. Alexander s^d he would provide the specific provisions in a follow-up comment letter. Lindquist later asked that this comment letter be sent in a timely manner. Alexander indicated another method could be to create incentives for the telecommurucation companies to use the water towers. He suggested the ^itranas be a permitted use wth administrative permission or subject to conditional use in differ^t districts (industrial, commercial, etc.) and performance standards instead of prohibiting them altogether. He noted the minimum height required is 75'. It costs $150,000 to $250,000 to construct a tower which the companies will avoid if locations for antennas can be found on e.xisting structures. Alexander informed Lindquist that co-location can occur if the newest provider conducts an interference analysis. He indicated the horizontal separation between antennas must be 20-25' Ke indicated his company prefers co-location whenever possible subject to a tease. He asked who the consultant was that assisted with the ordinance review. Van Zomeren reported the consultant was John Dubois. Van Zomeren reported that City Attorney Radio has indicated the ordinance is reasonable and provides for the City to be covered. He had noted that it is not clear what the FCC allows or disallows. Alexander argued that if the water towers are not suitable to the needs of the PCS, it would render the ordinance as prohibitive. Smith asked if the need for additional antenna locations from that allowed by the proposed ordinance currently exists or if the concern regards possible future needs. Alexander felt it affects the current condition and future. He noted the company is unaware of what sites will be used, but the restriction on the tower could possible place the service in jeopardy. Alexander said APT is currently in Phase I of implementation, and Orono is in Phase 2. He indicated the criteria that must be met includes 1) radio frequency, 2) coverage, 3) linkage with sites, i.e. leaseability, space availability, structural adequacy, and 4) land being buildable for antennas and towers. Lindquist noted that the law is ever-changing regarding this new technology. Alexander responded that the 1996 Telecommunications Act provides for the needs. Cities are told to act quickly, moratoriums are allowed, but must be timely, and the service cannot be prohibited.