Wireless Communications Facilities

Additional recommendations based upon March 9, 1999 Public Comment

I S S U E S :

• Permitted and Conditional Uses
• Parcels rezoned to the WCF Overlay
• Lighting
• Color of WCF
• Temporary WCF
• Abandonment
• Minimum distance between towers
• Indemnity Provisions
• Historic Properties
• Notice to Adjoining Owners
• Setbacks from Property Lines

ORDINANCE ISSUE: Permitted and Conditional Uses.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Consider Conditional Use process for Minor WCF in AG/RR and FR zones, and a Rezone process (rather than a conditional use process) for other WCF in AG/RR and FR zones.

OPTIONS: 1. Require Conditional Use approval for Minor WCF in AG/RR and FR zones.

2. Require Rezone approval for WCF in AG/RR and FR zones.

3. Eliminate all provisions for Minor Facilities.

4. No changes.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 3. If provisions for minor facilities are desired, staff recommends Option 1.

Although the task force had initially intended to encourage smaller towers (by including provisions for Minor Facilities), it is apparent than many people do not agree that smaller towers are more desirable. In addition, we believe that the ordinance lacks incentives and that the Minor WCF option will not be used.

Staff does not support Option 2. We believe that AG/RR and FR zones, in general, are less sensitive than residential zones due to population density. We also believe the ordinance should discourage deployment in residential zones. To also discourage WCF in AG/RR and FR zones (by requiring the same cumbersome and completely discretionary rezone process), we eliminate the incentive (i.e. a conditional use process) that can help us protect dense residential areas.

...........................................................................................................................................

ORDINANCE ISSUE: Parcels rezoned to the WCF Overlay

PUBLIC COMMENT: Consider limiting size of WCF Districts to the area needed for a WCF.

OPTIONS: 1. Limit each WCF District to a maximum size of 1.0 acres.

2. No changes.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports Option 2. The Rezone process is completely discretionary. A request can be approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved. To set "standards" for a discretionary process suggests that the process is not, in fact, discretionary. The Planning Department staff, as well as the Plan Commission and County Commissioners, will insure that property to be rezoned contains only that area which is necessary to accommodate a WCF.

...........................................................................................................................................

ORDINANCE ISSUE: Lighting.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Consider prohibiting any WCF that would require lighting.

OPTIONS: 1. WCF that require lighting by the FAA shall not be permitted.

2. No changes.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports Option 2. The current draft already prohibits lighting except where required by the FAA, and even then only permits red light for night illumination (strobes are prohibited). Note that lighting may, in fact, never be used due to the height limitations imposed by the draft regulations.

As FAA requirements may change, staff believes that the ordinance should have some flexibility. To completely prohibit facilities that (upon FAA determination) require illumination could be contrary to safety standards and potentially discriminatory.

...........................................................................................................................................

ORDINANCE ISSUE: Color of WCF.

PUBLIC COMMENT: If a painted finish is desired, consider a neutral dull-gray. Other colors may be less effective.

OPTIONS: 1. All WCF, Minor WCF and Support Structures shall be painted with a neutral gray color (eliminate discretion).

2. No changes.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports Option 2. In certain circumstances, colors other than gray may blend better with the surrounding environment. The Planning Department and Plan Commission should retain discretion.

...........................................................................................................................................

ORDINANCE ISSUE: Temporary WCF.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Consider allowing more time for a Temporary WCF. The Wireless Communications Service Providers need to deploy facilities quickly; allowing temporary facilities may alleviate immediate pressure and afford companies the time to negotiate long-term co-location agreements (thus eliminating the need for a permanent tower).

OPTIONS: 1. Permit Temporary WCF for a maximum of thirty (30) days, with provisions for a thirty day extension.

2. No changes (currently 2 days).

RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports Option 1. Although Temporary WCF could be placed in sensitive areas (for short-term deployment only), we believe that these facilities could significantly benefit property owners in the long term by allowing companies additional time to investigate co-location opportunities.

...........................................................................................................................................

ORDINANCE ISSUE: Abandonment.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Consider reducing the time allotted for removal (in the event of abandonment) from 12 months to six months.

OPTIONS: 1. Require all discontinued WCF to be dismantled within six months from the date of abandonment.

2. No change (12 months).

RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports Option 1. As abandonment is unlikely (at least in the near future), this does not appear to be a significant issue. Six months would appear to be reasonable and consistent with similar provisions in the Pre-existing Nonconforming Use chapter.

...........................................................................................................................................

ORDINANCE ISSUE: Minimum distance between towers.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Require a minimum distance between WCF, perhaps two to four miles, as a means of limiting towers.

OPTIONS: 1. Require a minimum distance between WCF (such as four miles).

2. No change (no requirement).

RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports Option 2. The co-location review requirements, as well as the provisions for discretionary approval, will insure that "tower farms" do not result.

It should also be noted that the proposed height restriction (a 199 foot maximum) will be a limiting factor with regard to coverage area. Strict spacing requirements may not work with the height restrictions (i.e. put towers too far apart so that they do not function) and could, in effect, render the deployment of a network or portion of a network impossible.

...........................................................................................................................................

ORDINANCE ISSUE: Indemnity provisions.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Consider eliminating the entire section; legal issues will be sorted out by parties involved in the lease agreements.

OPTIONS: 1. Remove the indemnity section(s).

2. No change.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports Option 2. The language is intended to release Monroe County from liability if the neglible act(s) of a wireless communications company or applicant result in damage to property. Other communities have adopted similar provisions.

...........................................................................................................................................

ORDINANCE ISSUE: Historic properties.

PUBLIC COMMENT: According to the draft ordinance, "stealth design" may be required for sites located within, or within 300 feet of, property officially designated as "Historic" by the State of Indiana, Monroe County or the City of Bloomington, or located within property listed with the National Register of Historic Places. It should also be reserved as an option for sites and properties listed in the Indiana Historic Site and Structures Inventory - Monroe County Interim Report.

OPTIONS: 1. Add the reference to the Indiana Historic Site and Structures Inventory - Monroe County Interim Report.

2. No change.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports Option 1. This guide will provide the Plan Commission with an additional resource. Although we recommend consideration of this information, we do not necessarily endorse all of the designations. Stealth facilities are not inexpensive, and should only be required when monopole construction would significantly impact the character and integrity of historic sites or structures.

............................................................................................................................................

ORDINANCE ISSUE: Notice to owners.

PUBLIC COMMENT: The current extent of notice - letters by certified mail to all adjoining property owners - is not broad enough. Consider a one-mile notification radius.

OPTIONS: 1. For each conditional use or rezone petition, notice shall be sent to all owners of property within a one-mile radius of the proposed WCF site.

2. For each conditional use or rezone petition, notice shall be sent to all adjoining owners of property by certified mail, and to all owners within a one-thousand foot radius of the proposed WCF site by first-class mail.

3. No change.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports Option 2. The siting and placement of wireless communications facilities is of concern to many people and extra effort with regard to notification may be warranted. However, we believe that the notification procedures should be reasonably consistent with established Plan Commission policies for all other land uses. Option 1, although well-intentioned, is excessive and the administration of such a requirement would consume disproportionate amounts of staff time.

...........................................................................................................................................

ORDINANCE ISSUE: Setbacks from Property Lines.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Setbacks from property lines should regard residential areas as most sensitive. The current requirements are not consistent with the goals of the ordinance. Also - eliminate the setback requirement from measured from a "residence". All setbacks should be measured from property lines.

OPTIONS: 1. Eliminate setback requirement from a "residence"; replace with increased property-line setbacks. Create a uniform requirement for WCF sites that adjoin residential properties (all Residential, AG/RR and FR zones). Eliminate inconsistent setbacks for conditional uses.

2. No change.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports Option 1. Over the course of many months, the setback requirements have become too complex. The table is confusing and does not accurately reflect the intent of the ordinance. We are strongly in favor of uniform standards that can be easily understood and administered, and recommend approval of the alternative Table 34-1 (below). Note: The proposed table includes an increased property line setback equal to 150% of the tower height (changed from 100%) to protect all Residential and AG/RR and FR Zones.