Zoning for telecommunication towers

[Brent_Albrecht]

I have been working with my boss to develop Telecommunication zoning regulations for a small Township in Ohio. However, we recently became aware of section 6409(a) of the Job Creation Act. SO far, I have read one case where At&t used 6409(a) to sue a city because they felt the provisions in 6409(a) allowed them to bypass local zoning ordinances. I was wondering if any of you have faced similar problems or threats by telecommunication companies because they felt the city you work for was violating 6409(a) of the job creation act. Thanks

[Kingmak]

Hmm, how does 6409(a) read? We just treat them as a special use in certain districts.

[Veloise]

FCC link

More than a decade of telecom zoning consulting experience here. I would go ahead and adopt boilerplate language for a WCF ordinance, and not include excessive requirements for antenna modifications or simple collocations. (Some of the jurisdictions I've worked with required full BZA, planning commission, and city council review to swap out an antenna. That's job creation for the zoning administrator, but it's nuts.)

HTH

[dvdneal]

I agree with Veloise. Most people where I'm at complain about the tower itself - not that I can regulate antenna anyway. Our county is carefull with new tower locations (for the most just put them out in the farms), but once that tower is approved adding antennas, swapping gear, whatever else is just a quick administrative permit. I go as far as letting people put new antennas on things like water towers as just an admin permit. That way we have no problems with 6409.

[Veloise]

I agree with Veloise. Most people where I'm at complain about the tower itself - not that I can regulate antenna anyway. Our county is carefull with new tower locations (for the most just put them out in the farms), but once that tower is approved adding antennas, swapping gear, whatever else is just a quick administrative permit. I go as far as letting people put new antennas on things like water towers as just an admin permit. That way we have no problems with 6409.

Another favorite: steer new builds towards municipal property, as directed in the ordinance. I tried to get my company to assist with a new DT veterans park memorial-statue installation. Always went for the water tank over the raw land new build. (Do you want a quick and easy approval and the undying gratitude of City Hall, or do you want a fight and complaining neighbors and one smug lessor?)

(not really on the dark side)

[short timer]

I strongly endorse the water tower co-location route. Not only does it tend to reduce community opposition but in the right circumstances it can be a healthy revenue generator for the local govt. We collect approximately $120K annually for antenna leases on four water towers.

[Suburb Repairman]

I agree with Veloise. Most people where I'm at complain about the tower itself - not that I can regulate antenna anyway. Our county is carefull with new tower locations (for the most just put them out in the farms), but once that tower is approved adding antennas, swapping gear, whatever else is just a quick administrative permit. I go as far as letting people put new antennas on things like water towers as just an admin permit. That way we have no problems with 6409.

We are similar. The tower goes through the wringer, but the antenae themselves are administrative permits. If they are a stealth facility (i.e. water tower, inside a church steeple, etc.) then it is also an administrative permit.

I'm actually in court today over a lawsuit against my city regarding a bonehead tower company that refuses to play by the rules, even after we made a small change to the rules in his favor during the lawsuit. They sued our Zoning Board of Adjustment & Appeals.