Appeasing the Locals

As the wireless industry wages its fight against tower-siting moratoria, community opponents are strengthening their resolve as well. For months, industry associations have been pushing the FCC to rule on local tower-siting moratoria. At the same time, local governments, municipalities and residents have banded together to fight federal regulation of tower siting. The communities now have gained the support of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT).

Late last year, Leahy introduced a bill that seeks to repeal the authority granted by the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which pre-empts state and local regulations on wireless towers. The bill would allow state and local authority to regulate the placement, construction and modification of telecommunications facilities.

While the bill waits for consideration on the House and Senate floors, wireless carriers are pushing forward to build out theirsites despite the local community resistance. Although some cases vary, the majority of zoning conflicts falls into one of four categories: setback requirements, aesthetics, property values or health concerns. Here are helpful hints for appeasing the locals on these issues.

SETBACK REQUIREMENTS Many cities and municipalities have added setback requirements to their new zoning ordinances. One city requires all wireless facilities to be located at least 500 feet from the nearest residentially developed property. In Ohio, one town implemented such strict guidelines that one carrier complained that they were "impossible to build around." The guidelines required that if a tower is less than 75 feet tall, the site must have a 250-foot setback from the nearest property line. If the tower is 75 to 150 feet tall, the site has to have a 500-foot setback. Any tower more than 150 feet must have a 750-foot setback from the nearest property line.

According to Brett Nichols, vice president of program management for LCC, these setback requirements are mechanisms for a county or city to protect against "fall zone." Roy Moore, president and CEO of FWT, said a tower is no more likely to fall down than a building.

Nevertheless, towers have defined fall-down radii. In some instances, you can work with a theoretical breakpoint, according to Moore. For example, if you have a 200-foot monopole with a 100-foot setback, you can engineer the top 100-foot portion for 100mph winds and the bottom portion for 105mph winds. By over-engineering the base, the top portion would fall within the proscribed fall-down radius.

Carriers should develop relationships with the local government and provide information about reasonable restrictions. For example, you should explain how tower technology has advanced and describe how towers are engineered and designed to collapse a certain way if they do fall.

If you arm the community with reliable information about towers and their characteristics in given environments, you may be successful in rewriting setback requirements, according to Nichols.

AESTHETICS Concern for the aesthetics of a community drives many citizens to oppose new tower sites. For example, one carrier negotiated a lease option to locate its 190-foot lattice tower on a town's former landfill site. But when the carrier met with the town's planning board for site-plan review, citizens opposed the proposal, which resulted in a public hearing. Among other things, citizens argued that the tower was visually unappealing and created aesthetic problems because the site was located off of a scenic road. In the end, the town council revoked the lease agreement, and both parties ended up in court.

Many communications ordinances contain provisions that attempt to mitigate aesthetic concerns by requiring property-line setbacks and landscaping around the site. According to Brian Milder, director of zoning and government relations for Comcor Advisory Services, you can resolve the problem by increasing the setback or installing enhanced landscaping.

But, Milder added, residents probably would have a tough time proving the tower would detract from the "benefits" the residents currently enjoy. Does the area have telephone poles, power lines and light standards? Can the residents recall the location of the power towers, water towers or other items of visual impact? Find out how the residents have been able to overcome the impact of their existence.

According Milder, the aesthetic issue usually boils down to what will reduce the visual impact. Most communities think that monopoles are less obtrusive than lattice towers. Low-profile antennas are available, and they are much less noticeable than the traditional triangular tower headframes. By replacing a lattice-tower design with a low-profile monopole design, you could achieve an acceptable compromise with the city.

The last compromise option, but probably the most expensive, is to replace the tower with a stealth design. The key once again is education. Show the community the different types of designs you can use to make the tower more visually acceptable. For example, you can set it behind buildings, disguise it as a windmill or hide it in a clock tower.

In the end, you will have to balance your options. Can the site overcome aesthetic objections from the community and get zoning approval? If so, are you willing to deal with potentially negative press regarding the site? How much are you willing to spend to make the community accept the site?

PROPERTY VALUES Loss of property value is a standard argument against new towers. One carrier applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct a 152-foot steel tower. After the county granted the CUP, several citizens filed an appeal to overturn the ruling. Petitioners alleged that the proposed site would be clearly visible and would degrade the character of the property substantially in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site. Ultimately, they said, it would cause immediate and irreparable loss of property values.

Citizens often claim that proposed sites degrade the property and decrease property values. In these situations, it is important to remain pro-active with the community.

"Provide citizens and the local government with information that garners a positive image for both the company and its towers," said Ron Gibbs, president and CEO of Lodestar Towers.

Don't be discouraged by the property-value argument. When it reaches the appeals level, citizens will have to show actual evidence of their allegations. Also, in the above example, the residents already had their chance to make their arguments during the CUP hearings.

A comparative property appraisal will counter the property- value argument. Go to other communities where towers have been erected and show that the property value in that area did not decrease.

The best approach is to sell the community on the fact that you're actually bringing value-added services, such as wireless 911 capabilities, to their community, Nichols added.

HEALTH CONCERNS Many citizens also are concerned about health issues. According to Gibbs, they think that emissions from towers create "irreparable damage to themselves and their families." Lodestar handled just such a case in Palm Beach County. Like many other towns and cities, Palm Beach County saw an influx of tower applications. In one case, more than 700 hostile citizens showed up to oppose the application. The residents of the bedroom community had put together a $60,000 war chest to fight the approval of any towers near their community. Among the protesters was a community action group called FACTS (Families Against Communications Towers near Schools). Citizens even sported T-shirts that read, "no towers, no radiation."

Education is the key to handling these situations, according to Gibbs. Make a presentation to educate the local residents and the government officials about the wireless industry and the truth behind the perceived health hazards. In Palm Beach, Lodestar found that the industry and the local government needed to take a more pro-active role to educate residents on the merits of the wireless communications industry.

"Make an effort to dispel the fear of health hazards that the general public has regarding communications towers," Gibbs said. "It has been blown way out of proportion."

CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE In many zoning situations, you may face several of these arguments at one site proposal. In one case, a carrier received permission from a property owner to locate its site on a piece of land in northern Kentucky. But surrounding property owners weren't as understanding, and the carrier spent almost a year moving the temporary site three times.

At the first location, adjacent homeowners objected to the tower being located behind their property for aesthetic reasons. When the carrier moved the site to the second location, a neighboring health-care facility objected because it was planning to build an addition and said the new tower would detract from its ability to sell retirement units. How do you handle a struggle between multiple parties?

According to Gibbs, there are steps that you can take to avoid or at least to better prepare for the type of problems this carrier endured. Before you even apply for a permit, research and find out the sentiments of local residents whose properties are near or adjacent to the target site. Don't limit your research to a detached reading of the applicable zoning regulations, Milder added. You must consider the likely concerns and potential reaction the community may have toward the site.

"This can be difficult and enters the realm of public relations, but it is important in forecasting what type of siting concerns you will face," he said.

Make an effort to personally contact the property owners adjacent or near the targeted site to provide one-on-one dialogue regarding your needs. Continually demonstrate a pro-active approach with the community. Educating people before a public hearing can sway public opinion in advance.

"Understand their concerns and offer possible solutions that address their needs," Gibbs said.

Even if you take these steps, you still may have to make some sacrifices. You may consider offering to build a stealth facility or look at alternative ways to shield the tower or monopole as much as possible. You may have to construct a multi-use facility and design it for availability by other users to reduce the need for additional towers in the future. You may have to offer some free space on the facility for the local government's use. Regardless, be prepared for these demands.

According to Comcor's Milder, property appraisals should be obtained for each representative area, such as urban, suburban and rural. These appraisals will show that although the tower may discourage a small percentage of the population from purchasing real estate, the market is deep enough to support the property value, which means there will be no noticeable decline in value.

Property appraisals could mitigate the concerns of the retirement home, and enhanced landscaping may satisfy the nearby homeowner. If zoning is not complete, these same concessions may help sway the jurisdiction. A photo simulation of the site with the proposed landscaping and the surrounding land can help ease the concerns of the property owners and local government, Milder said.

The most important thing is to stay in close contact with the local government. Find out what is important to the zoning and planning staff. How seriously will they consider the objections in light of the carrier's information? When you have done as much as you are willing to do, proceed to the hearing, and make the best presentation possible.

How does a carrier head off potential opposition to tower sites at the local level? Site acquisition professionals share these tips:

"Before you start any RF design, go out into your market and learn the zoning. Learn where you can go, where the municipalities want you to go, and then search for existing structures. From that information, design your RF plan. Carriers who don't yet have customers can still work on pre-marketing to set the stage for site development -- educate the community about your product up-front." -- John P. Tynan, president, TynanGroup

"It's extremely important that a carrier align itself with well-seasoned professionals. Landlords are very proud of their properties. You can't just say, 'Here's $500 a month, and by the way, we're going to put up a few antennas on your building.' You have to have a solution in hand. Also, although everybody is anxious to get their networks up, it's better to make sure you have a strategic plan, and then build out from there. Another very important issue is to make sure all of the possibilities for co-location are exhausted. If this doesn't work, try to locate the site close to an existing site." -- Nestor Popowych, president, PAL Telecom Group

"PCS carriers need to continue to look at existing sites, find those that really work for them, and then build their network around what's there. Second, they need to educate their site-acquisition people on what's needed. The biggest error that is made is not determining whether adequate power and adequate phone lines are available. Also, do your homework. Some communities prefer a network of sites all around, while others want two or three big towers to accommodate all users." -- Jerry Lindquist, president and CEO, Diablo Communications

"The entire process is absolutely contingent upon what you know about local land use and zoning regulations. Often carriers want to build a system based on topographic mapping technology or radio frequency propagation analysis. But when push comes to shove, they find out they just won't be able to build an antenna close to a park or a school or on a certain building. Then they have to change their network design." -- Neil McCurdy, director of marketing and business development, The Walter Group

In the struggle to get past zoning boards and siting moratoria, many carriers end up in court. According to siting consultants, this doesn't have to happen to you. By preparing now for what may be in store, you can avoid some of the drawn-out headaches that many carriers face with court proceedings.

"There have been numerous instances where a legal battle only strengthens the resolve of the opposition," said Ron Gibbs, president of Lodestar Towers.

The last thing you want to do is end up in court, agreed Brett Nichols, vice president of program management services for LCC.

"Avoid that at all costs," he said.

Nichols admitted that is often easier said than done. However, basic research and background information will help to pinpoint potential problem areas and prepare you for what is to come. For example, it helps to know how previous carriers handled these same problems in your market.

"If there's been someone before you, and they've done severe damage, then you're probably going to have a lot of work to do," he said.

You can avoid making the same mistakes as your predecessor by approaching the jurisdiction and talking about its past experiences. Find out what tactics and approaches are the best to use in that particular jurisdiction. According to Nichols, they will tell you what they liked or didn't like about the previous carrier. Then you can adjust your approach to become more compliant.

And because property owners, community groups and local governments are paying close attention to tower issues, it is more important than ever that you do your homework before developing any site, added Brian Milder, director of zoning and government relations with Comcor Advisory Services. RF engineering alone no longer controls siting. Now, more parity exists between RF, zoning and leasing concerns.

With that in mind, your first step is to meet with local planning and zoning boards to discuss your specific needs for the site, Gibbs said. Be open with the board officials about your total build-out plan.

By building these relationships early, Nichols said, ultimately you may be able to help the jurisdiction write its ordinances.

Also use this time to get a clear understanding of the current ordinances that govern tower construction. Determine the proper zoning classification for the target property, and determine the political environment for approving communications towers.

No matter how cooperative you are, problem areas still will exist. Pinpoint these early on. Conduct a zoning analysis of the market to identify key areas where there has been trouble in the past. By contacting the jurisdiction and finding out its view and perspective and moratoria position, you may find out up-front that you will not get on a certain site. Then, Nichols said, you can design around the most difficult areas to get the coverage using alternate formats.

Be prepared to educate the local planning and zoning officials on the merits of communications sites, Gibbs added. Enlighten them about the important services that are provided via tower sites. A variety of tools are available to help with these efforts. The Personal Communications Industry Association offers an educational video that you can present to bothgovernment officials and residents. This video contains good insight into the necessity of communications sites. The Site Owners and Managers Association also provides helpful educational literature.

This type of education can go a long way in getting through the tough cases, Nichols said. Usually, problems arise because zoning boards are uneducated about what's coming at them. They are bombarded with a new wave of carriers wanting sites, the wrath of concerned citizens and new terms such as co-location.

Although there are no guaranteed answers to solve these problems, co-location is one solution that is easing the zoning struggle for many carriers.

"You should attempt to co-locate wherever possible," Gibbs said.

It can help curb many potential problems. Review the local area for existing sites (rooftops, towers or monopoles) to use in lieu of building a new facility. The first option should be to co-locate at an existing facility near your target area. Explore these alternatives thoroughly.

Even if there is nothing available, this information can be disseminated to the local planning and zoning board and local residents. If alternative sites are available, check to see if they provide adequate coverage. According to Gibbs, providing this information to the community demonstrates your willingness to be more pro-active and cooperative.