A local government's review of their Land Development Regulations is a great time to examine ways to better integrate wireless facilities regulations into the rest of the code. PCIA/The Wireless Infrastructure Association and FWA (the Florida Wireless Association) offer this guide as some suggestions on why and how to complete that integration.

The theme of these suggestions is that there is really no reason to treat similar uses differently, just because they are associated with wireless facilities. This means only the aspects of wireless facilities that make them different from other uses should be addressed differently in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). In accordance with this concept, the following provides suggested ways to address and regulate wireless facilities.

Antenna Placement

Antennas can go on more than towers; they can go on almost any structure tall enough and strong enough. Recognizing and encouraging this in the LDRs can mean fewer new towers will be needed. Many LDRs provide for an exception to the zoning district height regulations for certain structures or equipment, allowing them to extend a specified distance above the roof or top of the structure. If this is the case in your regulations, just add wireless antennas to the list.

There may be an inclination to want to prohibit wireless antennas on residential structures, but if they are limited in height, their "commercial" nature is not readily apparent, and they would be consistent with other types of appurtenances that are allowed on a residential structure, there would not appear to be a real reason to treat wireless facilities any differently.

Most jurisdictions want to encourage wireless carriers to use existing structures to their fullest capacity, recognizing that existing tall structures are already part of the visual landscape and it is typically aesthetically better to fully use them than to have new towers. The best way to encourage this full use is to make the permitting and approval process as simple as possible.

Collocations (the placement of multiple antennas on existing structure) should be simple. Jurisdictions can ensure compliance with relevant Florida law regarding collocations by comparing their regulations for antenna placements to the requirements of F.S. 365.172(12)(a). Their regulations can be less restrictive than the statutory requirements, but cannot be more restrictive.

New Tower Placement

Of the different parts of a wireless facility, it is the towers that typically trigger the greatest amount of regulations by jurisdictions. This does not necessary need to be so. When analyzed objectively, it is only the height of towers that create concerns. Further, the height of the tower realistically only creates two potential issues - safety concerns and aesthetic concerns.

Some jurisdictions are concerned that towers will fall and hurt people. The reality is that towers are required to be built to meet or exceed all of the construction codes, including wind-loading in high wind events. Added to the extensive code requirements is the reality that the antennas and facilities on the tower are very expensive and are key components of the carrier's network, which create a strong incentive for the wireless companies to ensure the towers are strong enough to safely hold the equipment. When compared to other structures and even natural objects, towers do not create a significant safety risk. Because all of the structural safety issues are already addressed in the Florida Building Code, there is no safety reason to require large setbacks for towers.

Aesthetics are very subjective and what is "acceptable" varies tremendously from area to area. To understand what is appropriate for your jurisdiction, it can help to analyze your current review processes and requirements for other uses, especially aesthetic requirements, and what makes some areas more sensitive to visual impacts than others. Some points to consider are as follows:

• Towers that meet the zoning district height regulations shouldn't be treated differently than any other structure in the district.

• Many jurisdictions have height exemptions or do not regulate the height of other tall structures, such as flag poles, ball field lighting, power facilities, and, sometimes, radio/television towers. It is important for the jurisdiction to closely examine why it is that these uses are not regulated. If these other tall structures are exempt from extraordinary review, it makes sense to treat communication towers the same way.

• If there aren't aesthetic requirements for other uses, there shouldn't be ones just for towers.

• If a regulation only applies to towers, analyze if it is really needed.

• It is not realistic to expect that towers will be invisible. The issue should not be whether the structure can be seen, but whether there are negative impacts created by seeing it. Generalized goals, such as "protecting residential areas" are not helpful if there is no understanding of what negative impact the regulation is protecting the residential area from.

• Artificial height limits can mean that more towers are needed in an area, both because the carrier may have to have multiple sites to serve the same area and, because the tower may not be tall enough for other carriers to collocate their antennas on.

• Camouflaged towers are not always the answer. They can be helpful in lessening "visual impact," but can come with trade-offs, such as the need for more tower sites and fewer collocation opportunities. Most camouflaging techniques impact the performance of the camouflaged antennas. For example, antennas that are internal to the tower structure tend to have to be smaller than external antennas, cannot be ideally positioned, have no "redundancy," in that one antenna has to send and receive all of the signals for that sector, and a carrier may need to have more than one antenna height. All of these factors can limit coverage range and capacity and the types of services provided. The regulations should provide incentives, such as faster review processes and fewer regulations, to encourage the use of camouflaged towers, but it should be recognized that there are times when camouflaged towers are not needed or are not the best answer.

• The relevance of whatever negative visual impact a tower might have, if any, must also be put into context of the services it provides. Electrical substations provide a good example of the need for this balance; they are a necessary part of providing electrical services to the community, but they usually are viewed as fairly unattractive. Similarly, tower facilities are needed throughout the community to provide wireless services, even though they may not be considered aesthetically pleasing.

Equipment Placement

The cabinets or buildings that enclose the equipment needed to provide wireless services are generally not much different in size and appearance than large accessory utility sheds in residential backyards. And, generally, the accessory building setbacks that control those utility sheds would work well for the wireless equipment. If your LDRs do not address accessory structures in all districts or are determined to not be appropriate for wireless equipment, the principal building structure requirements should be more than sufficient for the wireless equipment.

Modifications to or Replacement of Existing Structures

To maximize the use of existing structures, regulations should allow site operators to modify or even replace facilities to make the structure strong enough or otherwise able to support the wireless antennas, especially if the modified or new structure will be no taller or larger than the existing structure (i.e., have the same or less visual character). Such modifications should be easily allowed.
Wireless facilities have become integrated as a part of our everyday lives. As this article suggests, they should also be integrated as a part of the Land Development Regulations, working in harmony with the rest of the regulations, with reasonable and consistent requirements that address only the issues that need to be addressed.

Resources

F.S. 365.172(12) establishes standards for local government review of new structures and is a necessary resource for municipal officials integrating wireless facilities into land development regulations. Additionally, PCIA offers its Model Zoning Ordinance as a resource to communities across the country. Please click here to review the Model Zoning Ordinance.

PCIA and FWA welcomes the opportunity to help your community draft provisions that balance network development needs with land use planning concerns. For more information on these issues, and further resources on how to ensure compliance with state siting laws and good planning principles, visit www.pcia.com/advocacy.