08-21-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4. Technological differences among providers. Wireless communications technology is • evolving and may have different configurations in the near future. In designing an original site, it may not be feasible to plan for future co-location. Questions which would need to be addressed include: How may antennas will be needed per site or per structure for each different provider? How high should a structure be designed to accommodate multiple antennas? Regulatory factors which affect co-location include the FCC's geographic service area requirements and any other limitations on tower sharing. Liability also is a factor. ,Which provider is liable for personal injuries or antenna damage for a shared site? • In addition, co-location may not be visually desirable in certain situations. For example, locating numerous antenna structures on a single site may result in the creation of a visually prominent "antenna farm."A single site may be more visually unobtrusive to the casual observer. Alternatives to co-location would be to provide effective screening of more dispersed antenna sites. Although there are many challenges to co-location, several cities require providers to co-locate facilities, where technically feasible and visually desirable. The City of Chula Vista requires permittees to cooperate with other communications providers in co-locating antennas within the City. Chula Vista requires that permittees demonstrate a good faith effort to share facilities and accommodate other users. The City does not require permittees to co-locate facilities, if such co- locations would contribute to a substantial technical or quality of service impairment; however, • competitive conflict or financial burden are not considered adequate reasons by Chula Vista against co-location. Similarly, in Palm Beach County, Florida, in order to encourage co-location, tower applicants are required to send certified mail announcements to all other users in the same area, declaring their sharing capabilities and/or siting needs. Except in cases where mechanical, structural, or regulatory factors prevent them from sharing, applicants cannot be denied or deny space on a tower. The direct legal implications of co-location are currently not addressed in federal or state statutes. However, because wireless communications facilities typically require discretionary permits, it is within local government authority in granting these permits, to set reasonable project requirements, which may include provisions for co-location. Accessory Equipment Storage Wireless communications facilities typically include small, un-manned equipment storage buildings or boxes that house transmitting and other equipment. Exterior equipment storage buildings are typically required to be architecturally compatible and consistent with surrounding buildings and structures, and also may be limited to a specific maximum size in certain jurisdictions. S • 27