HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA201300001 Presentation 2012-08-28ATTACHMENT B
A L B E M A R L E C O U N T Y , V I R G I N I A
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies
August 28, 2012 (Draft)
Prepared for:
Albemarle County, Virginia
401 McIntire Road, Room 248
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Prepared by:
CityScape Consultants, Inc.
7050 W Palmetto Park Rd #15 -652
Boca Raton, Florida 33433
www.cityscapegov.com
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 The Telecommunications Industry 3
Introduction............................................................................................................. ............................... 3
Wirelesshandsets ................................................................................................... ...............................
3
Wirelessfacilities .................................................................................................... ...............................
5
Basestation and feed lines ...................................................................................................... ..............................5
Antennas and antenna arrays for wireless telecommunications ............................................ ..............................7
Support facilities for the antenna ........................................................................................... ..............................8
Wireless infrastructure ........................................................................................... .............................10
Antenna network capacity .................................................................................... .............................10
Summary.................................................................................................................. .............................12
Wireless infrastructure and local zoning ............................................................. .............................13
Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 ............................................................ .............................14
Federal Communications Commission Declaratory Ruling November 18, 2009 .......................15
The Middle Class Tax Relief & Job Creation Act of 2012 — HR 3630 ............... .............................17
Chapter 3 Court Decisions Influencing Wireless Deployment
20
Chapter 4 Analysis of Albemarle County's Policies
26
Sec. 5.140 Personal Wireless Service Facilities .................................................... .............................26
Openingstatement: ............................................................................................................................................
26
Tier1 facilities ....................................................................................................................... .............................27
Sec. 5.140.c.2 ....................................................................................................................... ...............................
28
Sec. 5.1.40.c.3 ........................................................................................................................ .............................28
Sec. 5.1.40.d.4 ....................................................................................................................... .............................29
Sec. 5.1.40.d.6 ....................................................................................................................... .............................30
Sec. 5.1.40.d.8 ....................................................................................................................... .............................32
Summary
33
Chapter 5 Broadband Deployment
36
Appendix A
38
2
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
Chapter 1 The Telecommunications Industry
Introduction
Telecommunications is the transmission, emission and/or reception of radio signals, whether it is
in the form of voice communications, digital images, sound bytes or other information, via wires
and cables; or via space, through radio frequencies, satellites, microwaves, or other
electromagnetic systems. Telecommunications includes the transmission of voice, video, data,
broadband, wireless and satellite technologies and others.
Traditional landline telephone service utilizes an extensive network of copper interconnecting
lines to transmit and receive a phone call between parties. Fiber optic and T -1 data lines increase
the capabilities by delivering not only traditional telephone, but also high -speed internet and, in
some situations cable television, and are capable of substantially more. This technology involves
an extensive network of fiber optic lines situated either above or below ground locations.
Wireless telephony, also known as wireless communications, includes mobile phones, pagers,
and two -way enhanced radio systems and relies on the combination of landlines, cable and an
extensive network of elevated antennas most typically found on communication towers to
transmit voice and data information. The evolution of this technology is known as first, second,
third, fourth and fifth generation (1G through 5G) of wireless deployment.
Wireless handsets
;vAo
1G 1984 Mobria Cell Phone
Image: J. Bundy
During the early 1980's, the first generation (1G) of 800
megahertz (MHz) band cellular systems was launched
nationwide. The 1 G portable cell phones were boxy in shape
and operated much like an AM and FM radio station. The 800
MHz frequency allows the radio signal from the base station to
travel between three and five miles depending on topography and
line of site between the base stations. Customers using a cell
phone knew when they traveled outside of the service area
because a static sound on the phone similar to the sound of a
weak AM or FM radio station was heard through the handset.
The signal either faded or remained crackling until the subscriber
was within range of a transmitting base station.
Originally, the 800 MHz band only supported an analog radio signal. Later technological
advancements allowed 800 MHz systems to also support digital customers which allows for an
increased number of subscriber transmissions per base station.
The 1990's marked the deployment of the 1900 MHz band Personal Communication Systems
(PCS). This second generation (2G) of wireless technology primarily supported a digital signal,
which audibly was clearer than the analog signal. The handsets were a fraction of the size of the
1G cell phones and the first handsets provided expanded services such as paging and the ability
3
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
to send text messaging through the handheld unit. However 2G had some network functionality
trade -offs. The technology of 2G included a static free signal but with a higher rate of
disconnects or dropped calls thus the deployment of 2G required significantly more base stations
for several reasons. First, the propagation signal in 1900 MHz is limited to a 2 -4 mile range so
the number of required base stations almost tripled just to provide basic 2G coverage in the same
geographic area as a 1 G service area. Second, the industry was reluctant to share tower space
with a competitor and many service providers resisted collocating on the same tower. Third,
subscriber base and usage grew rapidly and the industry needed more sites to improve network
coverage demands by their customers.
2G Motorola Phone 2G Nokia Phone 2G Motorola Phone
Image: amazon.com Image: htcevoforum.net Image: superstock.com
Third and fourth generation (3G and 4G) wireless handsets offer a wide variety of tools and
services including access to e -mail, news, music and videos; built in cameras and videos; global
positioning services (GPS); internet commerce; and thousands of applications from games to
flashlights for downloading onto the handset. These applications require large amounts of
bandwidth and service providers continue to upgrade existing base stations and add additional
base stations to improve and increase network capacity. To improve
network functionality service providers purchased licenses to operate in
the 1700 -1800, and 2100 -2400 MHz frequencies.
The operating footprint is similar to the 1900 MHz footprint and helped
to increase bandwidth in smaller geographic areas. With the advances
of 4G the service providers are purchasing licenses in the 700 MHz
frequencies. The 700 MHz platform has a service area similar to 800
MHz and will allow the service providers to broadcast a larger
propagation footprint. The need for additional infrastructure for 3G
and 4G is significant nationwide and continuous deployment of new
2G Phone (left)
4G Phone (right) base stations will be necessary as the industry transitions to fifth and
Image: answers.com sixth generation (5G and 6G) utilizing the 700, 800, 1700 -1900, and
2100 -2400 MHz frequencies. LTE is used as a marketing name and is
not reflective of the actual download speed as defined as 3G and 4G.
Unlike 1G and 2G (initial launch of cellular and PCS wireless service with the goal and objective
of providing initial wireless coverage); 3G through 5G deployments will be focused on
compressing more data in existing and future bandwidths. Fourth generation network
technology (the platform for smartphones) emphasizes improving network capacity and
4
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
maximizing the use of bandwidth for faster and more efficient transfers of data. Fifth generation
wireless will bring faster data transfers and additional wireless services such as using your phone
for credit card transactions and other similar functions. Like all previous generations of wireless
deployment, 5G will require more sites.
Satellite technologies
Satellite growth has surpassed the highest expectations of only a few years ago. The reason is
simple - cost. Previously, relaying information, data, and other related materials were cumbersome
and required many relay stations in very specific locations and relatively close together. Initially
satellite use was expensive because of the rarity and limited amount of available airtime needed.
Satellite airtime has become more affordable with the deployment of additional satellites and
advanced technologies that allow more usage of the same amount of bandwidth. Competition
always holds down cost, and that is what has occurred. In addition, satellite services are in the
early stages of designing more localized networks; contributing to the already rapid growth.
Satellite technology has its limitations, which are all
based on the Laws of Physics. Some licensees of "��'� " -- ----- Ka,6_ad a
lridlum Satellites + +'
satellite services such as SiriusXM Radio and satellite _
telephone services petitioned the Federal LanE
\\ Aeronautical Ka -6aatl
Communications Commission (FCC) and have been -
allowed additional deployment of land -based
supplemental transmission relay stations for the ability
to compete more aggressively with existing ground
base services, and overcome obstacles typical to
satellite technology. Subscribers found the delay in talk
times unacceptable along with fade and signal dropout.
The FCC is looking favorably upon this request, even Iridium Satellite Routing System
though the existing land -based services are strongly Image: wcclp.com
objecting for various reasons. SiriusXM Radio was
successful in obtaining ground base supplemental transmitters, and is rapidly becoming one of
the largest users of ground base transmitters. This will place more demands on governmental
agencies as another service begins to construct a land -based infrastructure.
Wireless facilities
Wireless communication facilities are comprised of four main apparatuses: 1) an electronic base
station; 2) feed lines; 3) antenna or antenna array; and 4) an antenna support facility.
Base station and feed lines
Base stations are the wireless service provider's specific electronic equipment used to transmit
and receive radio signals, and is usually mounted within a facility including, but not limited to:
cabinets, shelters, pedestals or other similar enclosures generally used to contain electronic
equipment for said purpose. Feed lines are the coaxial copper cables used as the interconnecting
media between the transmission/receiving base station and the antenna. The base station and
5
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
feed lines shown in Figure 1 is a typical model for providers operating in the 1900 MHz
frequencies and ground space for this equipment cabinet is around eight (8) square feet.
Figure 1: Example of 1900 MHz Wireless infrastructure Ground Equipment
The electronics operating the 800 MHz wireless systems within the base station can generate
substantial heat, therefore the base stations for providers operating in the 800 MHz frequencies
are much larger and generally need an equipment cabinet a minimum of four hundred (400)
square feet to house the equipment. The only noise that might be produced from the vicinity of
any base station would be from an air conditioner or a backup generator that might be necessary
in instances of no power or power failure. Figure 2 is a picture of an 800 MHz base station.
Figure 2: Example of 800 MHz Base Station
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
Antennas and antenna arrays for wireless telecommunications
Antennas can be a receiving and/or transmitting facility. Examples and purposes of antennas
include: a single omni - directional (whip) antenna or grouped sectorized (also known as panel
antennas). These antennas are used to transmit and/or receive two -way radio, Enhanced
Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR), cellular, Personal Communications Service (PCS), or
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) signals. The single sectionalized or sectionalized panel
antenna array is also used for transmitting and receiving cellular, PCS or ESMR wireless
telecommunication signals.
Omni- Directional
Whip Type Antenna
Sectorized (panel)
Antenna Array
Figure 3: Examples of Directional and Panel Antennas
The antenna can also be concealed. Concealment techniques include: faux dormers; faux
chimneys or elevator shafts encasing the antenna feed lines and/or equipment cabinet; and
painted antenna and feed lines to match the color of a building or structure. A concealed
attached facility is not readily identifiable as a wireless facility. Various examples of antennas
attached to buildings and structures are shown in the following pictures.
N
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
.-
f...........
ZZ:
Figure 4: Examples of Concealment Techniques
Support facilities for the antenna
A variety of structures can be used for mounting the antenna(s) such as towers, buildings, water
tanks, existing 911 tower facilities, tall signage and light poles; provided that, 1) the structure is
structurally capable of supporting the antenna and the feed lines; and, 2) there is sufficient
ground space to accommodate the base station and accessory equipment used in operating the
network. Antenna support structures can also be concealed in some circumstances to visually
blend -in with the surrounding area.
Figure 5 on the following page provides examples of several antenna support structures. The
flagpole and light standard are concealed towers. The antennas are flush - mounted onto a
monopole and a fiberglass cylinder is fitted over the antenna concealing them from view. The
bell tower is a concealed lattice tower. The antennas are hidden above the bells and behind the
artwork at the top of the structure.
8
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
Figure 5: Examples of Antenna Support Facilities
■
- d4
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
Wireless infrastructure
To design the wireless networks, radio frequency (RF) engineers overlay hexagonal cells
representing circles on a map creating a grid system. These hexagons represent an area equal to
the proposed base station coverage area. The center of the hexagon pinpoints the theoretical
"perfect location" for a base station (antenna support facility).
Next, coverage predictions are shown from the base station
within the hexagon. The propagation pattern is generally
circular and the size of the coverage area is affected by many
variables such as antenna mounting elevation, topography, land
cover, and size of the immediate subscriber base. The
illustration to the left shows a smaller coverage area in green
}+ " and the largest coverage area in pink. The difference in
coverage areas could be relative to the antenna mounting
elevations (a lower antenna mounting elevation on the tower in
the green circle and a higher antenna mounting elevation on the
Hexagonal Grid with Circular tower in the pink shaded circle); or differences in network
Coverage from Base Stations capacity or topography. The grid systems are unique to each
Image: 5freshminutes.IT service provider and maintained by each individual wireless
provider's engineering department.
Antenna network capacity
The number of base station sites in a grid network not only determines the limits of geographic
coverage, but the number of subscribers (customers) the system can support at any given time.
Each provider is different but a single carrier can only process or turn over a certain number of
calls per minute, and at any particular time only a certain number of calls can occur
simultaneously. This process is referred to as network capacity. As population, tourists and
local wireless customers increase, excessive demand is put on the existing system's network
capacity. When the network capacity reaches its limit, a customer will frequently hear a rapid
busy signal, or get a message indicating all circuits are busy, or commonly a call goes directly to
voicemail without the phone ring on the receiving end of the call.
As the wireless network reaches design network capacity, it causes the service area to shrink,
further complicating coverage objectives. Network capacity can be increased several ways. The
service provider can shift channels from an adjacent site, or the provider can add additional base
stations with additional infrastructure.
A capacity base station has provisions for additional calling resources that enhance the network's
ability to serve more wireless phone customers within a specific geographic area as its primary
objective. An assumption behind the capacity base station concept is that an area already has
plenty of radio signals from existing coverage base stations, and the signals are clear. But there
are too many calls being sent through the existing base stations resulting in capacity blockages at
the base stations and leading to no service indications for subscribers when attempting to place a
call.
10
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
According to data from SNL Kagan, the federal penetration rates of subscribers with wireless
telephone service for the United States indicate a level of around eighty -four percent (84 %) and
it is predicted to be at one hundred percent (100 %) by the end of 2013. This does not mean that
every person will have a cell phone; rather, many people will have more than one phone creating
the effect of one cell phone per person.
Thus, subscriber density for 3G and 4G is what controls the separation distance between base
stations. The existing network design, based on local wireless penetration rates and usage, has
each site facilitating the use of between 1750 and 2500 separate devices. As wireless devices
increase in number and usage (particularly more intensive bandwidth usage like e-mail,
Facebook, and mobile TV), each site will need to decrease its geographic area and serve a
smaller number of subscribers in order to avoid overloading its systems.
Wireless broadband
Wireless broadband is analogous to the communications of voice via wireless phones but for the
transmission of high speed wireless data along with standard voice communications. Wireless
broadband is the transfer of data (wireless broadband) via radio waves between computers, hand
held wireless phones and other wireless devices. First generation wireless deployments launched
the analog hand held phones operating in the 800 MHz frequency. Second generation wireless
deployments launched the digital wireless voice network in the 800 and 1900 MHz frequencies.
Third and fourth generation wireless deployments add the capability of wireless data networks,
now including the 2400 and 700 MHz frequencies, although many carriers are using their
designated voice channels for broadband.
Traditional service providers such as AT &T, Verizon, and Sprint/Nextel have added wireless
broadband to their platforms. Newer wireless handsets (smartphones) can communicate via
voice (phone) and access the wireless broadband ( internet). Additionally there are service
providers such as Clearwire and other smaller regional services whose business plan is to provide
wireless data /internet (broadband) (but not traditional voice service) to its subscriber base as an
alternative to local cable and dial up internet service providers.
The infrastructure for wireless broadband is similar to that in use for wireless phones; i.e. an
elevated antenna with a base station for each service provider. The service area can be reduced
in order to maintain an acceptable download speed which will lead to the need for more
infrastructure. For example, during maximum usage periods in order to cover a geographic area
of approximately five square miles the following would be anticipated:
• 1G — Analog - 1 cell site
• 2G — Cell phone - Digital TDM — 6 cell sites
• 3G — Smartphone - Digital CDMA — 14 sites
■ 4G — Universal personal communicator device - Digital CFDM or LTE - 36 sites
Complete fourth generation broadband network deployment is anticipated to begin in 2013
beginning in the urban markets.
M
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
Summary
Wireless handsets used for personal wireless services have changed significantly from the initial
launch of the cellular phones in the 1980's. The infrastructure that is the backbone of these
handsets has not changed as much from a visual perspective. The wireless networks still need
elevated antennas above tree lines and rooftops to transmit and receive the communication
information between wired and wireless devices. Moisture contained within leaves and pine
needles absorb and refract the signal and create an unpredictable propagation variable. There are
no antennas currently on the market that can manipulate nature and the laws of physics to
eliminate the changes in the propagation characteristics from antennas placed within the tree line.
Wireless antennas can function below the tree line but not at the same performance level as
compared to antennas placed in the same location above the tree line. For this reason, the
industry will continue to prefer placement of their antenna arrays above the tree line to achieve
optimal propagation from the infrastructure and maximize their investment in the communities
they are servicing. The antenna sizes used have changed minimally over the years. Recent
inclusion of remote radio heads in the antenna will generally mean larger and more complex
antennas as compared to the earlier 2G installations.
The structures on which the antennas mount have changed very little, other than generally
becoming shorter in geographic areas where taller towers are permitted. The monopole and
lattice towers remain the most widely used tower infrastructure nationwide for deployment
practices. It is likely that diameters of monopoles will need to increase to allow additional space
inside for more coaxial lines to accommodate additional antenna and antenna types.
Concealment techniques continue to be used to mitigate the visual impact in areas of concern as
identified by local governments.
Mergers and acquisitions (Sprint and Nextel for example) will bring about a temporary
downsizing and consolidation of infrastructure for the companies involved but overall the
industry will continue to need more and more infrastructure with transitions to 3G, 4G, 5G and
beyond. The antenna elements will need to be closer together and above tree lines and rooftops.
12
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
Chapter 2 FCC Rulings, Programs and Policies
Wireless infrastructure and local zoning
With the deployment of first generation wireless, there were only two competing wireless
cellular (800 MHz) providers. But with the deployment of 2G, and six competing PCS (1900
MHz) providers, the wireless marketplace became furiously competitive. "Speed to market" and
"location, location, location" became the slogans for the competing 1 G and 2G providers. The
concept of collocation or sharing base stations was not part of the initial tower deployment
strategy as each provider sought to have the fastest deployment and largest customer base
resulting in a quick return on their cost of deployment. This resulted in an extraneous amount of
new tower construction without the benefit of local land use management.
Coincidently, as local governments began to adopt development standards for the wireless
communications industry, the industry strategy changed again. The cost associated with each
provider developing an autonomous inventory of base stations put a financial strain on their
ability to deploy their networks. As a result, most of the wireless providers divested their
internal real estate departments and tower inventories. This change gave birth to a new industry
of vertical real estate; and it includes a consortium of tower builders, tower owners, site
acquisition and site management firms.
No longer was a tower being built for an individual wireless service provider, but for a multitude
of potential new tenants who would share the facility without the individual cost of building,
owning and maintaining the facility. Sharing antenna space on the tower between wireless
providers is called collocation.
This industry change could have benefited local governments who adopted new tower ordinances
requiring collocation as a way to reduce the number of new towers. But, initially it did not;
because the vertical real estate business model for new towers is founded on tall tower structures
intended to support as many wireless providers and other wireless services as possible. As a
result, local landscapes became dotted with all types of towers and communities began to adopt
regulations to restrict or even prohibit tall communication towers within their jurisdictional
boundaries.
Wireless deployment came to a halt in many geographical areas as all involved in wireless
deployment became equally frustrated with the situation. Second generation wireless providers
had paid a large sum of money for the rights to provide wireless services. Collectively the 2G
wireless providers paid over twenty -three billion dollars to the US Treasury (which at that time
helped the Federal government pay off the annual deficit by 1998) for the licenses to build and
operate these networks. Furthermore, the license agreements between the wireless providers and
the FCC mandated the networks be deployed within a specific time period and at that time many
local government agencies were prohibiting the deployments through new zoning standards.
13
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
Robert F. Roche of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) stated in The
Unpredictable Certainty: White Papers (1997)
"...the wireless paradigm has resulted in more than 200,000 new jobs, and almost
$19 billion in private- sector investment... and in spite of these gains and the
promise of another $50 billion in investment over the next 10 years, there are
impediments to this success... Some local jurisdictions are preventing the
deployment of antennas, either through outright bans, extensive delays, or
application of unscientific "local technical standards" to radio frequency
emissions..."
Roche further suggests the CTIA should:
"...1) urge President Clinton to direct federal agencies to make available federal
land and sites for telecommunications infrastructure; 2) urge the FCC to develop
national standards on radio frequency emissions over local standards; and 3) urge
the FCC to advocate the primacy of national telecommunications policy over
local policies that are hostile to competition..."
This perplexing situation prompted the adoption of Section 704 of the Federal Telecommunication
Act of 1996.
Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) policies impacting deployment of wireless
facilities are, with certain exceptions, unchanged since the enactment of the 1996
Telecommunications Act. The overall concept as passed by Congress was to facilitate the
creation of a wireless infrastructure to parallel the wired infrastructure that existed in the United
States. The FCC's mandate has been to work towards accomplishing that goal, and the current
Commission in particular has paid great attention to moving that task forward.
Section 704 of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 retains local governments' zoning
authority over the deployment of wireless telecommunication facilities subject to several specific
requirements.
First, zoning regulations and decisions may not unreasonably discriminate among the wireless
providers, and may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the deployment of wireless
infrastructure. For example, some communities adopted development standards restricting the
distance between towers to three miles. In some geographic locations with sparse populations
this may have been adequate for 1G deployment; however the Laws of Physics make it
impossible for 2G wireless deployments to meet this spacing requirement. Unknowingly some
communities inadvertently prohibited the deployment of 2G.
Second, local governments must act on applications for new wireless infrastructure within a
"reasonable" amount of time
Third, the local government must provide in writing a reason for any denials and the decision
must be supported by substantial evidence.
14
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
Fourth, local government cannot deny an application for a new wireless facility or the expansion
of an existing facility on the grounds that radio frequency emissions are harmful to the
environment or to human health (provided federal standards are met by the wireless provider).
Additionally, the FCC provided two Fact Sheets to further explain the goals and objectives of the
Act. Included in Fact Sheet 1 is the suggestion for local government to the use of third party
professional review of site applications. Specifically stated, "Local zoning authorities may wish
to retain a consulting engineer to evaluate the proposals submitted by wireless communications
licensees. The consulting engineer may be able to determine if there is some flexibility as to the
geographic location of the tower."
The full text of the Act is provided in Appendix A.
Federal Communications Commission Declaratory Ruling November 18, 2009
In states where there is no specific state statutory obligation on local jurisdictions (which
includes the Commonwealth of Virginia) the FCC's Declaratory Ruling will apply and impose
upon local jurisdictions a timeline in which it must act upon wireless siting applications. The
November 18, 2009 Declaratory Rulings regarding timelines for local government to act upon a
wireless siting application specifies a local government agency has thirty (30) days from receipt
of an application for a new tower or collocation to determine if the application is complete or
incomplete. Additionally the FCC provided the following deadlines for the local government
decision process:
Collocation — local government agencies have ninety (90) days from the date the
application is filed to render a decision for approval or denial of the collocation.
New towers — government agencies have one hundred fifty (150) days from the date the
application is filed to provide a decision on the proposed request.
If a jurisdiction fails to act on an application within those timelines, an applicant will have the
opportunity to file suit in federal court and seek judicial determination of the application. Several
jurisdictions challenged the FCC's authority to impose a "shot clock" on such local zoning
decisions. On January 23, 2012, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided City of Arlington,
Texas v. FCC, 668 F.3d 229 (51s' Cir. 2012), and found that the FCC was legally empowered to
impose the "shot clock" on local governments in jurisdictions without state statutory provisions
that are more restrictive. This case is discussed in greater detail in the following chapter. There
have been some other federal district court cases that have addressed the "shot clock" issue
tangentially but are not relevant for this discussion. Of note and importance because of recent
Congressional action was the FCC's definition in the Declaratory Ruling of what constitutes a
collocation application, which the FCC defined as "a substantial increase in the size of the
tower" as set forth in the National Programmatic Agreement . 2
'Declaratory Ruling, FCC 09 -99 (Released November 18, 2009)
2 . A "[s]ubstantial increase in the size of the tower" occurs if:
15
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
Having established a procedural timeline for action on wireless siting applications, the FCC has
recently also enacted regulations that impose additional burdens on applicants seeking to
construct new towers for wireless services. Effective June 18, 2012, new federal procedural
obligations (unrelated to any local procedural obligations) are imposed on any applicant that is:
(1) planning to build any new tower that would have to register through the FCC's
Antenna Structure Registration (ASR) system (typically towers that exceed 200 feet in
height, but sometimes less). The only exceptions are for (a) towers to be built on sites for
which some other federal agency has responsibility for environmental review or (b) cases
in which an emergency waiver has been granted; or
(2) modifying an existing registered tower by (a) increasing its overall height by more than
10% or 20 feet, or (b) adding lighting to a previously unlit structure, or (c) modifying
existing lighting from a more preferred configuration to a less preferred configuration; or
(3) amending a pending application involving either of the foregoing situations and the
amendment would (a) change the type of structure, or (b) change the structure's
coordinates, or (c) increase the overall height of the structure or (d) change from a more
preferred to a less preferred lighting configuration or (e) an Environmental Assessment is
required.
If an applicant's proposed tower or tower modifications fall into one of these categories, an
applicant must now follow new processes and procedures with the FCC in order to obtain
approval of its proposed facility, including:
(1) Filing a partially - completed Form 854 in the FCC's ASR system. This will
consist of information previously required on Form 854, plus tower lighting
information and specification of the date on which the applicant wants the
FCC to post the application on the Commission's website for comments;
(1) [t]he mounting of the proposed antenna on the tower would increase the existing height of the
tower by more than 10 %, or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the
nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet, whichever is greater, except that the mounting
of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this paragraph if necessary to avoid
interference with existing antennas; or (2) [t]he mounting of the proposed antenna would involve
the installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology
involved, not to exceed four, or more than one new equipment shelter; or (3) [t]he mounting of the
proposed antenna would involve adding an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would
protrude from the edge of the tower more than twenty feet, or more than the width of the tower
structure at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater, except that the mounting of the
proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this paragraph if necessary to shelter the
antenna from inclement weather or to connect the antenna to the tower via cable; or (4) [t]he
mounting of the proposed antenna would involve excavation outside the current tower site,
defined as the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any
access or utility easements currently related to the site.
47 C.F.R. Part 1, App. B— Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas,
Definitions, Subsection C.
Uri
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
(2) Publishing a notice ( "in a local newspaper or by other means ") regarding the
application on or before the date the applicant has designated in its application
for posting of the application on the FCC's website. The comment period will
be open for 30 days, during which time members of the public can ask the
Commission for further environmental review.
(3) If, after the comment period, FCC staff concludes that no additional
environmental review is required, the applicant will then move on to Step Two
of the process. In that step, the applicant will have to amend its application to
reflect (a) the FAA's study number and issue date (if those haven't already
been provided in the initial application), (b) the date of the local public notice,
and (c) a certification that the proposed construction will have no significant
environmental impact; OR.
(4) If, after considering the initial filing and any public comments, the FCC
decides that more review is required, it will require the submission of an
Environmental Assessment. If an Environmental Assessment is required, the
FCC will first have to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact before the
applicant can proceed to Step Two with the necessary amendment of its
application.
All of the foregoing processes were adopted after FCC consideration of multiple petitions by
parties concerned about the effect of tower construction on the environment, including the effect
on migratory birds and tower strikes by such birds.
These new provisions will significantly extend the timeline for federal approval of new
construction or modification of towers that meet the conditions above3, which may have the
effect in some instances of slowing the deployment of wireless facilities where the proposed
facilities fall into one of the three (3) categories above.
Applicants may also seek local approval of their proposal at the same time the federal processes
are underway on parallel paths, and thus it is unclear at this time what impact the federal
processes may have on the processing and adjudication by local government of wireless siting
applications.
In addition to the FCC's recent actions, Congress also recently involved itself in wireless siting
issues by including language in recent legislation signed by the President on February 22, 2012
that impacts local governments' consideration of wireless siting applications.
The Middle Class Tax Relief & Job Creation Act of 2012 — HR 3630
In Section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Congress further
eroded local government's jurisdiction over wireless facilities through the following language:
(a) FACILITY MODIFICATIONS.—
3 The new requirements are imposed on proposals for either new towers or modifications that, generally speaking,
do constitute a "substantial change" as that term is defined by the FCC.
17
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
(1) IN GENERAL.— Notwithstanding section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
(Public Law 104 -104) or any other provision of law, a State or local government may not
deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing
wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of
such tower or base station.
(2) ELIGIBLE FACILITIES REQUEST. —For purposes of this subsection, the term "eligible
facilities request" means any request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base
station that involves —
(A) collocation of new transmission equipment;
(B) removal of transmission equipment; or
(C) replacement of transmission equipment.
(3) APPLICABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS.- Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be
construed to relieve the Commission from the requirements of the National Historic Preservation
Act or the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Note that Section 6409 applies where an application for modification of an existing wireless
facility does not involve a "substantial change" to the physical dimensions of such tower or base
station.
Congress did not define "substantial change" in the legislation. In order to determine what
constitutes "substantial change ", the only currently available definition arises from the FCC's
National Programmatic Agreement (see footnote 2), which is also the definition endorsed by the
wireless industry.
Under this new Congressional requirement, local governments must approve any application for
collocation, removal or replacement of wireless equipment if the proposed modifications to an
existing facility do not involve a "substantial change" (and as noted above, the only currently
available definition of "substantial change" is that defined by the FCC in the National
Programmatic Agreement). This further degradation of local governmental authority over
wireless facilities (and the willingness of wireless providers to suggest to local governments that
this new statutory mandate provides a basis to immediately grant their application) is impacting
wireless deployment by emboldening the wireless industry to increase deployment efforts despite
local government concerns. Although this is recent legislation and there does not yet appear to
be any reported decisions involving Section 6409, Cityscape is aware of at least one lawsuit
being commenced citing Section 6409 as jurisdictional authority (despite the fact that the
applicant who has sought judicial relief was granted authority by the local government to modify
their facility with certain conditions).
In 2004 Albemarle County adopted a personal wireless services facilities ordinance in
accordance with the provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Since this time the
Federal government had adopted additional policies that should be integrated into the Albemarle
regulations in order to harmonize them with applicable federal law. For example, the timeline as
described in the "shot clock" Declaratory Ruling should be integrated to indicate that collocation
applications shall be reviewed and adjudicated by the County within ninety days of completed
submission, and an application for a new facility shall be reviewed and adjudicated by the
County within one hundred fifty days of complete application submission.
18
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
Furthermore, the County's regulations should recognize the provisions of Section 6409 of the
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 to permit equipment collocations,
removals and replacements on existing eligible facilities that do not "substantially change" the
physical dimensions of the tower structure, via well - defined collocation and related approval
processes that meet the ninety (90) day shot clock standards.
While Albemarle County could in fact choose to develop its own definition of "substantial
change" since Congress failed to provide a definition of same, it is our opinion that a federal
court, in examining an application for wireless facilities, would be more likely to apply the
FCC's definition of "substantial change" in the National Programmatic Agreement as Congress'
intent rather than a locally developed definition of the same since multiple jurisdictions could
have multiple definitions of what they considered "substantial change" which would lead an
inability to uniformly apply a standard nationwide. Since the FCC has effectively preempted the
issue by creating a definition for "substantial change ", we believe the County would be best
served by using that definition in its regulations in order to defend any action against it by an
applicant. Note however, that even in the case of the FCC's definition, a "substantial change"
can be implicated not only in the vertical perspective but also in the horizontal perspective. As
such, many proposals for collocation may constitute a "substantial change" using the FCC's
definition, which in turn would mean the provisions of Section 6409 would not apply.
I.
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
Chapter 3 Court Decisions Influencing Wireless Deployment
Judicial decisions, interpreting statutory provisions and FCC policies, have also played a role in
shaping deployment of wireless facilities. As the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decisions are
binding upon jurisdictions in the Commonwealth of Virginia, that court's rulings will be the
focus of this analysis, with additional decisional law from other circuits that is also relevant.
The Fourth Circuit's decision in 360 Communications Company of Charlottesville v. Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, 211 F.3d 79 (4th Cir. 2000)( "Albemarle County ") is
obviously a logical place to begin this analysis. In Albemarle County, the Fourth Circuit
affirmed the lower court's finding that the County's decision denying an applicant's siting
request (for a 100 foot tower on the ridgeline of Dudley Mountain, over 1/2 of which would
extend above the tree canopy), was supported by substantial evidence, but reversed the lower
court's conclusion that the County's decision had the effect of prohibiting the provision of
wireless services. The Fourth Circuit disagreed with the lower court's conclusions that the
denial of a single site permit had the effect of "prohibiting the provision of wireless services ".
The Fourth Circuit instead wrote: "Because the simple fact of denial with respect to a particular
site is not enough, there must be something more, taken from the circumstances of the particular
application or from the procedure for processing the application, that produces the "effect" of
prohibiting wireless services." It further explained that an applicant faces a "heavy burden" to
demonstrate that the County's action in denying a single application had the effect of prohibiting
service, distinguishing its position from that taken by the Second and Third Circuits in similar
cases.4 The Fourth Circuit then concluded by stating:
Not only has 360° Communications failed to meet its heavy burden in demonstrating that the
Board of Supervisors' denial of a permit for a particular site amounts to a general prohibition
of service, but the Board of Supervisors has also provided affirmative evidence to the
contrary. It demonstrated that it has approved 18 applications for wireless service facilities,
including several from 360° Communications and a few for towers in mountain regions.
In summary, we conclude that the Board of Supervisors' decision to deny 360°
Communications' application for a special permit to install a tower on the ridgeline of Dudley
Mountain is supported by substantial evidence in the record. We also conclude that there is
insufficient evidence in the record from which to conclude that the Board's denial of this
single permit had the effect of "prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services," in
violation of 47 USC §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). "5
It should be noted that in determining whether a denial amounts to a general prohibition of
service, other circuits have developed standards at odds with the Fourth Circuit. In some
circuits, a plaintiff (applicant) need only show that the proposed facility constitutes the "least
4 See APT Pittsburgh Ltd. Partnership v. Penn Township, 196 F.3d 469, 480 (3d Cir.1999); see also Cellular
Telephone Co. v. Zoning Bd. ofAdjustment of the Borough of Ho- Ho -Kus, 197 F.3d 64, 70 (3d Cir.1999). See also
Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 643 -44 (2d Cir.1999) (recognizing that denials of applications to
provide service to fill coverage gaps that are limited in number or size generally will not amount to a prohibition of
service).
s 211 F.3d at 85.
20
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
intrusive means to close a significant gap in service ".6 The Fourth Circuit however has
expressly rejected that type of analysis, stating that it would improperly create a presumption in
favor of the wireless applicant and unreasonably shift the burden of production to the local
government.7 The rationale recited by the Court in Albemarle County has been applied in a
number of recent decisions arising in the Commonwealth of Virginia in 2012. Three recent
decisions from the Fourth Circuit are notable.
In T- Mobile Northeast, LLC v. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, 672 F.3d 259 (4t' Cir.
2012) ( "Fairfax'), the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision that the local
government had neither "effectively prohibited the provision of wireless services" nor
"unreasonably discriminated" against T- Mobile in denying its application to modify an existing
facility.
The facility proposed in Fairfax would have increased an existing pole from 100 feet to 110 feet
and added a set of three (3) panel antennas at the top of the newly extended pole, which already
contained at least 21 separate antenna elements from other providers. Both the county's
planning commission and board of supervisors denied T- Mobile's application, finding that the
proposed location, character and extent of the proposal was not in conformance with the
County's comprehensive plan and that the visual impact of the extension would be "significant
and adverse ".
The Fourth Circuit initially concluded that T- Mobile had failed to meet its "heavy burden" of
showing that the denial of this particular application by the County amounted to an effective
prohibition of service, finding that T- Mobile's "evidence ", which consisted of general
declarations making general conclusions that alternate sites would not allow T- Mobile to "meet
its coverage objectives," was insufficient and that T- Mobile failed to adequately explore viable
alternatives, and failed to demonstrate that future efforts to obtain approval would be fruitless,
noting that Fairfax County has approved numerous applications for wireless facilities, including
many for T- Mobile.
The Court then addressed T- Mobile's allegations that the County had unreasonably
discriminated against it (as compared to other providers) in its decision, finding that, based on
the record below, opposition to T- Mobile's application was founded on traditional zoning
principles of aesthetic impact, and that the process and decision regarding T- Mobile's
application could be distinguished on the facts from the prior applications of the other carriers on
the same pole, finding therefore that no unreasonable discrimination had occurred in the
County's decision.
A few weeks after the Fairfax decision, the Fourth Circuit released its opinion in New Cingular
Wireless PCS, LLC v. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, 674 F.3d 270 (4' Cir. 2012)
( "Cingular'). In the Cingular proceeding, the Court affirmed the lower court's finding that
Fairfax County had not unreasonably denied an application for a new 88 foot tower in a
residential neighborhood by AT &T, finding again that there was substantial evidence to support
the County's decision and that the decision did not "effectively prohibit wireless services ".
6 See MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715 (911' Cir. 2005)
7211 F. 3d at 87.
PA
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
Initially, the Fourth Circuit found that the applicant, much like in Fairfax, had failed to meet its
"heavy burden ". In its analysis, the Court determined that the County had evaluated and
identified "a number of ways in which [AT &T's] proposed wireless facility would not be in
harmony with the zoning objectives and the Comprehensive Plan for that geographical area."
The Fourth Circuit further concluded that:
"Indeed, far from "provid -[ing] the least visual impact on residential areas," as required by
the County's Policy Plan Objective 42(i), the Board noted that the proposed facility: (1) was
to be located 100 feet from two of the neighboring residences; (2) would extend thirty -eight
feet above the closest tree; (3) would rise approximately forty -eight feet above the average
height of the existing trees on the adjacent property; (4) was to be located on a site containing
concrete pads, with only a few trees and a small, grassy area with dense brush; and (5) called
for supplemental vegetation that, when full grown, would not reach a sufficient height to
minimize the tree monopole's visual impact. Like the district court, we find that these
discrete characteristics of the proposal, when considered together, are adequate to support
the Board's conclusions that the proposed facility does not satisfy the County's Policy Plan
or the standards for approval under the zoning ordinance." (emphasis added).
After finding that the County's decision had substantial support in the record, the Court turned to
AT &T's assertion that the denial had the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless services.
Finding that AT &T's "evidence" on this issue was even weaker that that provided in the Fairfax
case (and involved speculation on the availability of same type of alternate location [a national
park] that T- Mobile had addressed in its proceeding), the Fourth Circuit found that since AT &T
had failed to even submit a proposal for an alternate location, its argument that there were "no
other feasible alternatives" was unpersuasive.
A week after the Cingular decision was released, the Fourth Circuit again addressed the same
issues that were present in Fairfax and in Cingular in the case styled T- Mobile Northeast, LLC v.
City of Newport News, Virginia, 674 F.3d 380 (4th Cir. 2012)( "Newport News "). In Newport
News, the applicant had sought to construct a new tower at an elementary school to address
alleged gaps in coverage. Following a number of community meetings, workshops and hearings
(and including a recommendation by the planning commission for approval), the application was
ultimately denied by the city council after a public hearing in which only three people spoke
against the application, each citing potential adverse health effects from the proposed facility,
and the city council having in the record a memorandum from the property appraiser of an
adjoining county that wireless facilities had no adverse effect on property values. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the city council denied the application without explanation. On appeal
the district court found that after eliminating the objections over health concerns (which the city
council could not consider under applicable federal law, which gives exclusive jurisdiction over
that issue to the FCC), the city council's denial was "not based on substantial evidence." The
city appealed that finding to the Fourth Circuit, and it concluded that with (a) the underlying
recommendation for approval; (b) the lack of any significant amount of opposition to the
application, and (c) the nonsubstantive and somewhat vague nature of the opposition ( "passing"
comments about speculative changes in property values), the record could not support the city
council's denial of the application. The Fourth Circuit did note that the one area where there was
substantive and animated opposition was with respect to the health effects of RF emissions, but
22
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
that such opposition could not, pursuant to federal law, be considered as a basis for denial of the
application because of the federal preemption on that issue. The Fourth Circuit then affirmed the
lower court's ruling that the denial was without competent or substantial evidence.
Another recent decision from January 2012 also affects wireless deployment regulation,
particularly in jurisdictions without state laws defining processing timelines for wireless
applications. In City of Arlington, Texas v. FCC, 668 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2012), several
municipalities, including Arlington and San Antonio, Texas challenged the FCC's ability to
regulate the processing timeline of local government (the "shot clock" from the November 2009
Declaratory Ruling). Although the Fifth Circuit found that the FCC had the authority to establish
the "shot clock" for jurisdictions that did not already have a specific statutory scheme regulating
processing timelines, the Fifth Circuit also found that a municipalities failure to meet the FCC's
"shot clock" timeline did not automatically mean that the applicant was entitled to obtain a
building permit and begin construction.
In City of Arlington, the petitioners challenged the FCC's "shot clock" on a number of
procedural and substantive grounds, but for the purposes of this memorandum, the significant
portion of the opinion dealt with what the Fifth Circuit said was the effect of the "shot clock"
when a local government failed to act on an application within the required timeline. The Court
stated that:
"In short, we believe the cities' challenges to the reasonableness of the 90 -and 150 -day time
frames stem from a misunderstanding of the time frames' effect on the wireless zoning
application process. We do not read the Declaratory Ruling as creating a scheme in which a
state or local government's failure to meet the FCC's time frames constitutes a per se
violation of § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii). The time frames are not hard and fast rules but instead exist to
guide courts in their consideration of cases challenging state or local government inaction. It
is true that courts considering such cases will owe deference to the FCC's determination that
a state or local government's failure to comply with the time frames constitutes unreasonable
delay. In the rare case in which a state or local government fails to submit any evidence
demonstrating the reasonableness of its inaction, the government's failure to comply with the
FCC's time frames will likely be dispositive of the question of the government's compliance
with § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii). The more likely scenario, however, is that a state or local government
that has failed to act within the time frames will attempt to rebut the presumption of
unreasonableness by pointing to reasons why the delay was reasonable. It might do so by
pointing to extenuating circumstances, or to the applicant's own failure to submit requested
information. Or it might note that it was acting diligently in its consideration of an
application, that the necessity of complying with applicable state or local environmental
regulations occasioned the delay, or that the application was particularly complex in its
nature or scope. All of these factors might justify the conclusion that a state or local
government has acted reasonably notwithstanding its failure to comply with the FCC's time
frames. We do not list these possibilities to establish a definitive list of the circumstances that
might cause a state or local government to have acted reasonably, however, as adjudications
of specific disputes under the statute will ultimately determine how specific circumstances
relate to the FCC's time frames. Our point here is simply to note both that a variety of
circumstances can affect the consideration and determination of a wireless facility zoning
23
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
application, and that these circumstances remain relevant even after the FCC issued its time
frames." 8 (footnotes omitted)
While reaffirming the FCC's ability to impose the "shot clock" timeframes, the Fifth Circuit
notably found that a local government's failure to meet those timeframes did not automatically
mean that the application was granted or that the applicant would prevail if it went to court to
seek judicial intervention. The Court pointed out that a local government could rebut the
"presumption of unreasonableness" based on inaction during the applicable timeframes with
evidence of reasons for the perceived inaction. This language provides an important lesson to
local government, specifically to diligently and regularly document the application process, and
any delays associated with such process, including incompleteness of materials by the applicant,
the existence of any complexities in the application or any other circumstances that prevent
completion of action on an application in the required timeframes. In this manner, local
government can provide a legitimate defense in any action brought under the "shot clock" rule
and allow a court to fully and fairly examine the relevant circumstances.
The municipalities in the City of Arlington proceeding have filed a petition for writ of certiorari
with the U.S. Supreme Court (Case No: 11 -1545) challenging the Fifth Circuit's decision to
uphold the FCC's "shot clock" timeline, which petition is currently pending.
Some 4G /LTE service providers arguably are not included in the definition of
"telecommunications services" set forth in Section 704 of the 1996 Act, and therefore may not be
subject to some of the provisions of federal telecommunications law. A federal court in Clear
Wireless, LLC v. Building Department of Lynbrook, 2012 WL 826749 (E.D.N.Y.
03/08/2012)( `Lynbrook ") found that the petitioner was not entitled to the protections of Section
704 of Telecommunications Act of 1996 ( "TCA "). That court began by examining the TCA's
language. The goal of the TCA, explained the court, was to allow for greater competition in
telecommunications markets by reducing local impediments to construction of wireless
communication facilities. The TCA, according to the Court, differentiates between a
"telecommunications service," which falls under federal regulation, and "information services,"
which remain in the discretion of the locality. The FCC has explained that although the
transmission component used for wireless broadband internet access is a "telecommunications
service ", wireless broadband internet access service was an "information service" because it
"offers a single, integrated service to end users, Internet access, that inextricably combines the
transmission of data with computer processing, information provision, and computer
interactivity, for the purpose of enabling end users to run a variety of applications." 10 The court
noted that there could be regulation of broadband services — certainly a local zoning board has
the ability to deny internet providers the ability to interfere with their services. The Lynbrook
court found, however, that the TCA does not limit a zoning board's decision over zoning issues
related to internet service facilities, and thus, the court declined to determine the scope of federal
authority over information services. This decision is limited in applicability because the
petitioner was Clear Wireless, which is solely a 4G data service provider of wireless internet
a 668 F.3d at 259.
9 In the Matter of Appropriate Regulatory Treatment for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireless Networks, 22
F.C.C.R. 5901, (March 22, 2007)
10 Id at 5911.
24
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
service. The same decision would likely not be reached had the petitioner been one of the
traditional voice /data wireless providers, such as Verizon or AT &T.
Summary
One of the principal lessons that can be gleaned from the recent Fourth Circuit cases is that a
local government in said Circuit should have clear and definable standards in its regulations
regarding the consideration of applications for wireless facilities, it should apply those standards
consistently amongst all applicants, and that a record of competent evidence should continue to
be assembled for consideration before making a decision because if the decision is adverse to the
applicant, it is likely that a court will be reviewing the same evidence in considering whether the
local government acted properly.
In addition, it is apparent that the FCC does have the authority to impose a "shot clock" on local
jurisdictions' decisional process, but it is equally evident that a failure to meet those time
constraints does not automatically mean the application for wireless facilities is approved. The
City of Arlington Court made it clear that a myriad of circumstances could be the cause of delays
and the burden is upon the applicant to show that the local government's inaction is unreasonable
under the relevant circumstances.
Overall, the recent statutory changes (Section 6409) are likely to create the most impact in
wireless deployment going forward. Using that Congressional mandate, applicants who seek
facilities that fall within the criteria set forth in the federal law will use those statutory provisions
to argue to local government that their application must be approved without any exception or
condition. Until there is case law interpreting those provisions and offering guidance to local
government, it will be difficult to avoid the implications of the plain language of the statutory
provisions.
Wireless technology changes are also affecting deployment regulation. Some wireless providers
are consolidating their wireless infrastructure because of technology advancements. These
consolidations are often characterized as "collocations" and thus the efforts of the industry to get
Section 6409 referenced above passed into law and enforced by the courts. However, it should
be noted that these consolidations of equipment can (a) create safety concerns because of the
physical addition of weight and equipment to tower structures and (b) create a different visual
aesthetic because of the addition of equipment. As such, local government should continue to
carefully monitor and consider such applications' impact on safety and aesthetics despite
industry claims of pre - emption by federal law.
25
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
Chapter 4 Analysis of Albemarle County's Policies
CityScape has reviewed Sec.5.1.40. Entitled, "Personal Wireless Service Facilities" as amended
on 10 -13 -04 and related definitions. CityScape appreciates the County's goals and objectives to
limit visibility of the facilities from pedestrian views, scenic view sheds, and from historic
properties. CityScape supports allowing Personal Wireless Service Facilities in Tiers I and II
"By Right" and to require approval of a Special Use Permit for Tier III facilities that do not meet
the prescribed `By Right" development standards. CityScape has a number of rewording
recommendations and definition improvements to harmonize with specific industry standards
that would reduce possible industry conflict and address rapidly evolving changes under Section
3.1 Definitions and throughout Section 5.1.40, which would be elaborated upon during an actual
ordinance amendment process. However, CityScape has identified a number of concerns in the
County's Code. The following observations identify, explain, and suggest possible remedies to
the concerns.
Sec. 5.140 Personal Wireless Service Facilities
Opening statement:
"The purpose of this section 5.1.40 is to implement the personal wireless service facilities policy,
adopted as part of the comprehensive plan. Each personal wireless service facility (hereinafter
"facility ") shall be subject to following, as applicable:
Comment(s): The County uses the definition "personal wireless service facility" to specify the
land uses being regulated in Section 5.1.40 and cross references Section 704 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. However the County's definition blends (comingles) the two
different definitions in Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Section
704.(a)(7)(A) General Authority states, "Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act
shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over
decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service
facilities." Section 704.(a)(7)(C)(ii) defines personal wireless service facilities as, "facilities for
the provision of personal wireless services ". Typically personal wireless service providers and
the owner of the personal wireless service facility are two different entities. The service
provider's emphasis is providing service to a geographic area and subscriber base. The facility
owner is a provider of vertical real estate with no obligation to provide the wireless service. The
two different entities have different business models and the business objectives between the two
entities do not always align. For this reason CityScape does not support comingling the two
definitions as provided in the Telecommunications Act.
Recommendation(s): Consider amending the definition of "personal wireless service facility" to
remove the definition of "personal wireless services and add new definitions for personal
wireless services and unlicensed wireless service. The definitions should match the definitions
as provided by the Telecommunications Act to prevent confusion between the different wireless
industry stakeholders and to maintain consistency with the Federal regulations.
Wi
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
CityScape also recommends the County consider defining the word "facility" to include the
types of towers (monopoles, lattice and guy towers) and other types of structures (building
rooftops, water tanks, utility poles, light poles) that antenna for personal wireless services can
attach onto in lieu of the traditional tower. CityScape also suggests the County consider
including "camouflaged facility" in the "facility" definition or create a new definition
specifically for camouflaged facilities.
Tier 1 facilities
This section is specific to Tier 1 facilities. The definition for a Tier 1 personal wireless service
facility or Tier 1 facility is as follows:
A personal wireless service facility that: (i) is located entirely within an existing building but
which may include a self - contained shelter or cabinet not exceeding one hundred fifty (150)
square feet that is not within the building or a whip antenna that
satisfy the requirements of section 5.1.50(c); (ii) consists of one or
more antennas, other than a microwave dish, attached to an existing
conforming structure other than a flag pole, that do not exceed the
height of the structure, and are flush mounted to the structure,
together with the associated personal wireless service equipment; or
(iii) is located within or camouflaged by an addition to an existing
structure determined by the agent to be in character with the
Concealed Attached Facility
Example of (i)
CityScape interprets this definition to generally describe a concealed attached antenna facility.
For example, the picture of the concealed antenna facility would meet the definition of (i)
because the antenna array is located entirely within the building behind
the louvers; and because the cabinet is also within the existing
building.
An example of (ii) could be an attached antenna onto a conforming
"structure" (building) or water tank, whereby the antenna do not
exceed the height of the structure and are flush mounted as shown in
the photographs to the right. Antennas in this photo are painted white
to match the facade of the building and are mounted just below the
rooftop on all four sides of the building.
Camouflaged Attached
Antenna
Example of (iii)
Attached Antenna
Example of (ii)
The picture of the faux brick panels would be an example of (iii)
because the antennas are camouflaged by an addition to an existing
structure.
Based on these examples of an unbiased interpretation of the County's
regulations, CityScape provides the following commentary on the
development standards relative to Tier 1 facilities.
27
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
Sec. 5.140.c.2.
Tier 1 facilities
2. (ii) outdoor lighting for the facility shall be permitted only during maintenance periods;
regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded as required
by section 4.17 of this chapter;
Comment(s): This lighting standard is not clear relative to the lighting on the
facility or lighting the leased area around the base of the facility. The Tier I
definition (iii) specifies, "or (iii) is located within or camouflaged by an addition
to an existing structure determined by the agent to be in character with the
structure and the surrounding district ". The "or" and reference to "addition" are
silent to an increase of height to the structure for (iii). If a camouflaged addition
is approved then the new height of the structure could necessitate lighting by the
FAA.
The Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) is the sole entity charged with regulating the lighting on
the facility. If the FAA indicates a facility must be lit then the local land use agency must allow
the lights. In most cases the local government can request a white strobe by day and red strobe
by night to help mitigate the impact of the white strobe at night.
Recommendation(s): Add clarifying language to address the lighting of the facility is specific to
the lighting of the ground equipment at the base of the facility and not the lighting of the
personal wireless communication facility. Add clarifying language addressing the potential
increase of height to an existing facility. Perhaps if the increased height requires the facility to
be lit by the FAA then the request must be processed as a Tier III application.
Sec. 5.1.40.c.3.
A. Tier 1 facilities
3. (i) the total number of arrays of antennas attached to the existing structure shall not
exceed three (3) ... which size shall not exceed one thousand one hundred fifty two (1152)
square inches...
(ii) no antenna shall project from the structure beyond the minimum required by the
mounting equipment, and in no case shall any point on the face of an antenna project more than
twelve (12) inches from the existing structure.
Comment(s): First, if the antenna arrays are located entirely within a building (see definition of
Tier 1 facility (i)), or camouflaged by an addition to an existing structure (see definition of Tier 1
facility (i) (iii) then why would the County be concerned with regulating the number and size of
the antenna?
Second, Cityscape is unclear of the size limitation in the size of the equipment. Remote radio
heads are being installed in larger flat antenna; these panel antennas can be as large as 11.5" by
72" equating to 828 square inches per antenna. The remote radio head antenna equates to 2484
square inches and greatly exceeds the County's 1152 square inch maximum.
28
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
Third, antenna tilting is a strategy for a service provider to concentrate signal to
a specific geographic area. This may require the antenna to project more than
twelve (12) inches from the facility. Also the definition of Tier 1 Facilities the
only scenario where the antenna would be seen would be when it is attached
onto an existing conforming structure, and thus why would the County impose
these regulations on antenna that are completely within a building or shielded
behind faux parapets, dormers or walls? Beam Tilt Image:
stelladoradus.com
The Ordinance appears to be silent with regard to collocations unless collocations are understood
by staff to be included in the Tier 1 Facilities. It is highly unusual for an ordinance not to
specifically include a definition for collocation especially since the term is an integral part of the
wireless industry. Antenna attachments and collocations are typically treated differently and not
using standardized industry terminology in the Ordinance can lead to misinterpretation and
loopholes.
Recommendation(s): First, consider removing the maximum number of arrays and size of
antenna onto an existing structure if the antenna arrays are within the structure or completely
camouflaged. Second, consider removing the antenna projection standard if the antenna(s) are
within the existing structure or camouflaged. Third, The Declaratory Ruling and Middle Class
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 specifically reference collocations and the County
should consider added a collocation definition and development standards specific to
collocations to the Ordinance. The County should consider including a definition for an attached
antenna facility to address development scenarios other than collocations and the regulations
should be very clear regarding which infrastructure is included in Tier 1 facilities.
Sec. 5.1.40.d4.
The facility shall not be located so that it and three (3) or more existing or approved personal
wireless service facilities would be within an area comprised of a circle centered anywhere on
the ground having a radius of two hundred (200) feet.
Comment(s): Wireless network deployment by the industry has concentrated on heavily
traveling locations since conception in 1980. The current and future deployment practices by the
industry are designed to improve service into residential areas and neighborhoods in order to
improve the overall footprint and comply with the federal mandates of E -911 service. National
research indicates that households nationwide are eliminating land line phones and using
wireless communication devises to reduce costs and improve accessibility. The population
densities of 5,000 to 10,000 people per square mile will require a minimum of five antenna
locations per square mile for each wireless provider to meet the network coverage demands of
the wireless subscribers for 2G and 3G. The County's Neighborhood Model maximizes
residential and supporting land uses in designated higher density development areas. This land
use pattern promotes the need for a concentration of personal wireless facilities. The following
service providers have licenses to deploy their wireless services within Albemarle County:
AT &T, EchoStar, nTelos, Pegasus, Sprint Nextel, T- Mobile, U.S. Cellular, and Verizon Wireless
Services. All eight of these service providers will need facilities in and adjacent to the urban
development areas and this will be in conflict with the zoning standard.
W
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
Given the County's height limitations for tree top
facilities it is likely that only a few facilities will have
more than one tenant or one collocation which will
result in clusters of small tower farms (i.e. multiple
short tower facilities within the same geographic
area). Given the number of service providers within
the market area it is likely the County will have tower
groupings of five to seven tree top towers per square
mile (or 3/4 of a mile) throughout the urban areas. This
picture is an example of a tower farm scenario.
L
Recommendation(s): Consider amending to have a different set of development standards for
the rural and urban development areas. The rural areas will not have the concentration of
facilities needed to provide service to the designated urban growth areas. Consider allowing one
treetop tower per licensed and unlicensed spectrum owner within the described "two hundred
(200) foot circle ". The County could likely reduce the two hundred (200) foot area standard to
one hundred (100) feet thereby providing more of clustering of the towers.
Sec. 5.1.40.d.6.
...The approved height shall not be more than seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree with
twenty -five (25) feet of the monopole ... the height approved by the commission may be up to ten
(10) feet taller than the tallest tree if the owner of facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
commission that there is not a material difference in the visibility of the monopole at the
proposed height, rather than at the height seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree:...
Comment(s): Land mass (mountains and valleys), buildings and vegetative cover (trees) are
significant variables in wireless network propagation patterns. The wireless service provider on
top of the facility will be the only service provider optimizing its network strategies. The next
lowest service provider will have a distorted propagation pattern due to the antenna being at and
below the tree tops. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 specifies local government
regulations "shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent
services and shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless
services. This particular zoning standard, if applied is allowable provided the County
understands that under Section 704 of the 1996 Act each qualified service provider must be
allowed the same access and process for approval in possibly the same vicinity.
Recommendation(s): Identify a maximum ambient tree height within the various geographic
regions of the County and establish a maximum height for towers by region, zoning district or by
urban and rural land use classifications rather than using the tallest tree within twenty -five (25)
feet of a proposed monopole to determine the maximum height of the tower. Consider
maximizing facility concealment techniques to help mitigate visually the antenna arrays and feed
lines.
The County could also consider allowing the use of concealed/camouflaged facilities in Tier I
and Tier Il. Many camouflaging options like slick sticks, three legged poles and dual purpose
30
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
facilities are on the market and available to the industry as an alternative to the standard
monopole or lattice tower.
The slick stick contains all antennas and cables interior to the facility and the outer fiberglass
casing can be painted any color to blend with the surrounding environment. The three - legged
pole hides the antenna behind fiberglass panels and the cables are run through the interior of the
poles. The fiberglass panels can be plain and of any color or have emblems or lettering specific
to the underlying property. Dual function poles can be used in utility rights -of -way and utility
easement; or dual functioning lighting standards.
100' Slick Stick (5 Service
Providers)
80' 3- Legged Pole (3
Service Providers)
80' Dual Purpose Light
Pole (1 Service Provider)
Dual Purpose Utility Poles Dual Purpose Utility Pole
kill
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
See. 5.1.40.d.8.
Each wood monopole shall be constructed so that all cables, wiring and similar attachments that
run vertically from the ground equipment to the antennas are placed on the pole to face the
interior of the property and away from public view, as determined by the agent...
Comment(s): The existing requirements regarding placement of cables, wiring and attachments in
this section may create a structural stability issue for a facility what would not otherwise be present.
Recommendation(s): Consider consulting with a structural engineer to refine the language to
ensure that it does not have the effect of creating structural stability issues for the sake of
aesthetics. As far as foundations, a number of the treated poles are direct imbed and some are in
concrete. The wood poles require a similar safety factor to a steel counterpart when used for
wireless facilities. Consider requiring wood poles to meet the following standards:
• TIA -222 -F or G for design loads;
• 2005 NDS for Wood Construction
• ANSI 05.1 -2002 regarding pole specifications and dimensions
Overall observation and comments pertaining to Tier I and Tier II facilities:
This particular zoning standard as applied is allowable provided the County understands that
under Section 704 of the 1996 Act each qualified service provider must be allowed the same
access and process for approval in possibly the same vicinity.
CityScape is cognizant of the County's preference for a greater number of shorter towers over
fewer, taller towers. We also recognize that the Fourth Circuit supports the zoning practice of
requiring shorter towers (even it more will be required) over taller towers. However, we do note
there appears to be a conflict between some of the County's development standards and the
industry's deployment practices. For example, Tier I standards appear to be intended to
encourage the use of existing facilities (tower or building). However, the height of that existing
facility will likely be just above the tree line, and thus there is a high probability of an applicant
needing to obtain a waiver or Special Use Permit to (i) increase the height of the tower; (ii)
exceed the antenna dimensional standards; or (iii) exceed the number of facilities allowed within
the prescribed area. Requiring that future applicant to utilize the Special Use process may be
perceived as disparate treatment of that applicant versus (i) the original applicant on the facility;
(ii) an applicant who uses antenna that meet the described dimensional standards; or (iii) the first
three tree top facility owners within the prescribed two hundred (200) foot circle.
Under the County's existing regulations, a Tier III approval (or modification) is required for (i)
the fourth tower owner within the two hundred (200) foot defined circle; or (ii) the fourth tenant
on a facility; or (iii) the service provider who needs to add additional height to an existing
facility in order to be above the tree line with their antenna(s); or (iv) the service provider with
antenna exceeding the dimensional standards. There is no guarantee a request that falls into
these categories will be approved. As a result, applicants who fall into this so- called "late
comer" category must go through a more arduous process than the stakeholders who entered the
market sooner and deployed their infrastructure in accord with the County's height and spacing
32
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
standards. As Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act is very clear the County must
treat all services providers of functionally equivalent services equally, an argument can be made
that the existing regulations create development standards that have the effect of favoritism, and
that the development standards do not treat all providers equally. We would suggest
amendments to ensure that the development standards and processes do not have the effect of
penalizing later applicants to a particular location or area.
Potential conflict with the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012
Comment(s): Some of the existing standards in 5.1.40(d) for Tier II applications may now
conflict with the requirements of Section 6409, particularly with respect to the limitations on
height imposed in the local regulation (and the ability to deny an application based on such
height) versus the mandatory approval requirements of Section 6409 for facility modifications
that do not constitute "substantial change ". The limitations on the number of collocations at a
particular site may also conflict with the provisions of Section 6409.
Recommendation(s): Consider amendments to this section of the Code to harmonize with now
applicable federal law on the same subject.
Summary
CityScape has reviewed the County's policies relative to the deployment of Personal Wireless
Service Facilities. The County's proactive approach to regulating the industry during the initial
launch of wireless network deployment has proven effective in minimizing tower visibility
throughout the County. The development of tree top tower regulations is unique, creative and
appears effective in keeping tower heights lower and just above the trees, thereby preserving the
ridgeline landscapes. The regulations do not appear to create barriers to entry because applicants
who need to exceed the maximum height standards of a Tier 2 facility can apply for a Special
Use Permit to allow a Tier 3 facility. The County's ordinance has the effect of requiring many
more additional personal wireless service facilities in lieu of taller, fewer towers and that is
acceptable per the Telecommunications Act which empowers local governments to regulate
height, placement, and land use compatibility issues to meet local jurisdictional desires.
Weaknesses and items to be addressed in the Ordinance include strengthening the definitions
section to include common industry terminology. Approval processes and procedures including
timelines consistent with the Declaratory Ruling should be provided; and the Ordinance should
be amended to address the provisions of Section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012.
CityScape realizes that some of the interpretations and commentary made by CityScape may be
viewed by the client as an inaccurate because in heights above tree lines, the maximum number
of towers within a geographic area, and a sundry of other development standards outside the
perimeters of Tier I or Tier II facility can be granted via the approval of Special Use for a Tier III
facility. CityScape has a general concern with this approach. The primary concern is the lack of
any guarantee the County will approve all requests outside the perimeters of the Tier I and Tier 11
development standards. If they are, then why require the applicant to go through that process?
33
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
Cityscape's goals and objectives are to create a win - win -win solution for the citizenry; elected
and appointed officials and staff; and the industry. The majority of households across the United
States are eliminating their landlines and using their wireless devices for their phones. With this
change comes the expectation their wireless devices will work on demand. The industry wants
to meet this expectation by deploying their networks quickly. Zoning ordinances that allow the
industry to deploy their networks for maximum functionality while still meeting the
community's ideal development standards via an administrative approval process can be
successful for all stakeholders.
From the industry's perspective the administrative approval process translates to "speed to
market ". The industry is generally willing to meet stricter design standards provided they can
meet their network design objectives and deploy more quickly. If the development standards for
administrative approval process do not allow the industry to meet their deployment goals then
the majority of the applications end up being submitted for Special Use Permit approval. At this
point there is no speed to market and there is no incentive for the industry to change their pattern
of doing business within the community.
Recently the County has received commentary from the industry regarding the existing
Ordinance suggesting the current development standards are too restrictive and the Special Use
permit approval process is too lengthy. Cityscape understands the industry's concerns and
suggests the County consider at least one of the following changes for a Tier II facility:
• Raising the height of the tower above the treetops to allow 2 tenants per tower above
the tree line.
• Increasing the number of treetop towers from four to 6, 7 or 8 within the two - hundred
(200) foot radius. (Keep in mind the radius could likely be reduces to one hundred
(100) feet).
• Allowing concealed towers like a slick stick in certain zoning districts.
CityScape is not suggesting that these changes be made without additional development
standards. Rather, create the development standards to achieve the County's desired result and
give the industry a path for a shorter approval process thereby creating speed to market and a
more of a win -win that includes the industry.
It would be useful to determine if Albemarle County residents' perspective on tower deployment
has changed over the last twelve years. CityScape has found that many, if not most communities
have seen less demonstrative opposition to cell towers due to numerous reasons from lessor
visual impact to the public's experience of the benefits of the infrastructure. Local governments
do not have to forgo regulating the industry to create a win -win for both the service providers,
tower owners and the community. Many of Cityscape's existing clients are developing more
detailed siting hierarchies that meet that particular jurisdiction's objectives; some include the
promotion of taller towers in certain geographic areas; or allow concealed facilities by right
meeting strict land use development standards; or using public land and public infrastructure as a
higher priority option (with the added benefit of managing the development of the facility as a
lessor and having access to it for public safety equipment). All methodologies allow more
34
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
flexibility, faster deployment, and access to wireless services without compromising the land use
compatibility or visual impact concerns.
Albemarle County's existing regulatory scheme has well served its community desires to date,
but changes in technology needs and in federal regulatory provisions have created a need for
updating the local regulations, both to ensure continued effectiveness in the face of new
technology deployment and to harmonize with applicable federal regulations in order to support
adjudicatory actions by the County in the event they are judicially challenged by an applicant.
Our suggestions above represent a framework for discussing such revisions and we would
welcome the opportunity to work with the County further with respect to these
recommendations.
35
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
Chapter 5 Broadband Deployment
Broadband is high -speed internet access. Unlike dial up internet access, broadband internet
access does not block landlines; it is always on (no need to connect, disconnect and reconnect)
and is much faster than dial up internet access. There are six methods of accessing broadband
internet services: Digital Subscriber Line (DSL), cable modem, wireless, satellite, fiber optic and
broadband over power lines, although this method is being phased out due to complex issues.
DSL is broadband that is provided using the copper cable in phone lines. Availability of DSL is
relative to the proximity of the landline phone company and how far the copper cable extents
from the hub.
Cable modem (cable) is broadband internet access provided via copper coaxial cable used for
television. Accessible to cable is dependent on the local cable television company's service area.
Fiber optic technology uses transparent glass fibers to transmit broadband.
Wireless broadband is internet access offered via the transmission of antenna from personal
wireless communications facilities. This is a great option for rural areas where DSL, cable and
fiber optic lines are not available to citizenry and businesses. Wireless internet offers three type
of wireless: fixed wireless, mobile wireless and Wi -Fi hot stops. Fixed wireless is internet
access to a stationary location. Access is provided via line of sight between the antenna on the
tower and the receiving location. Mobile access is typically accessible to laptops computers via
built -in receiver or via an access card that plugs into the USB port. Wi -Fi hot spots are part of
the "last mile" connectivity program and typically wireless internet hubs found closer to the
towers and supporting specific small geographic areas like coffee shops, bookstores, downtown
areas, schools and office parks.
Satellite broadband is a solution for rural areas without access to other broadband mediums.
Satellite broadband is generally slower than DSL, cable, fiber and wireless but is faster than the
dial up alternative.
Broadband over power lines is (as the name implies) broadband via electric power distribution
poles and easements.
Summary
The County wants to promote broadband deployment into rural portions of the County.
Typically when access to cable, DSL and fiber is not available then wireless is the preferable
option because it offers fast internet connections, is less costly to access, and faster to deploy.
There are generally two different entities providing wireless broadband: companies whose
business model is primarily wireless broadband for example Level 3 Communications, LLC and
CenturyTel, Inc.; and the wireless service providers like AT &T, Verizon Communications Inc.,
and Sprint Nextel Corporation. Regardless of the primary business platform of the wireless
tri
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
broadband provider, one thing is certain; they will need many more personal wireless service
facilities County -wide to provide broadband internet access. Typically the business model for
the commercial wireless service providers is founded on maximizing the return on their
investment and rural markets typically do not have the subscriber base to justify the
infrastructure investment. If the County wants to promote wireless internet development in the
rural areas then perhaps the County could develop zoning policies that encourage deployments in
the rural areas or explore the use of existing public infrastructure and publicly -owned lands to
promote speed to market to all wireless services providers, including wireless broadband service
providers.
Fluvanna County, Virginia has identified approximately ten new tower sites countywide for their
new emergency management system. Each of these new tower locations have been included in
their telecommunications master plan and will be marketed to the wireless communications and
wireless broadband service providers as potential locations for their infrastructure. The county is
uniquely responding in a way to make available wireless services more readily accessible to their
rural residents and business owners. Albemarle County may want to explore options unique to
Albemarle County that will have the effect of encouraging and promoting wireless deployment
in the rural areas to bring broadband deployment into portions of the County not presently
served. Many communities desire to find ways to encourage more rapid deployment of wireless
broadband, but keep in mind that all wireless service providers must be treated equally.
37
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
Appendix A
SEC. 704. FACILITIES SITING; RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSION STANDARDS.
(a) NATIONAL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SITING POLICY- Section
332(c) (47 U.S.C. 332(c)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
'(7) PRESERVATION OF LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY -
'(A) GENERAL AUTHORITY- Except as provided in this
paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the
authority of a State or local government or instrumentality
thereof over decisions regarding the placement,
construction, and modification of personal wireless service
facilities.
'(B) LIMITATIONS-
' (i) The regulation of the placement, construction,
and modification of personal wireless service
facilities by any State or local government or
instrumentality thereof- -
'(1) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of
functionally equivalent services; and
'(11) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the
provision of personal wireless services.
place,
'(ii) A State or local government or instrumentality
thereof shall act on any request for authorization to
place, construct, or modify personal wireless service
facilities within a reasonable period of time after the
request is duly filed with such government or
instrumentality, taking into account the nature and
scope of such request.
'(iii) Any decision by a State or local government or
construct, or modify personal wireless service
facilities shall be in writing and supported by
substantial evidence contained in a written record.
'(iv) No State or local government or instrumentality
thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and
modification of personal wireless service facilities on
the basis of the environmental effects of radio
frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities
comply with the Commission's regulations concerning
such emissions.
'(v) Any person adversely affected by any final
action or failure to act by a State or local government
or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent
with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such
action or failure to act, commence an action in any7
court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear
and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any
38
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Wireless Telecommunications Trends and Policies • Albemarle County, Virginia • August 28, 2012
person adversely affected by an act or failure to act
by a State or local government or any instrumentality
thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may
petition the Commission for relief.
'(C) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this paragraph- -
'(i) the term 'personal wireless services' means
commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless
services, and common carrier wireless exchange access
services;
'(ii) the term 'personal wireless service facilities'
means facilities for the provision of personal wireless
services; and
'(iii) the term 'unlicensed wireless service' means
the offering of telecommunications services using duly
authorized devices which do not require individual
licenses, but does not mean the provision of
direct -to -home satellite services (as defined in
section 303(v)).'.
(b) RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS- Within 180 days after the
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall complete action in ET
Docket 93 -62 to prescribe and make effective rules regarding the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions.
(c) AVAILABILITY OF PROPERTY- Within 180 days of the enactment of
this Act, the President or his designee shall prescribe procedures
by which Federal departments and agencies may make available on a
fair, nondiscriminatory basis, property,
rights -of -way, and easements under their control for the placement
of new telecommunications services that are dependent, in whole or
in part, upon the utilization of Federal spectrum rights for the
transmission or reception of such services. These procedures may
establish a presumption that requests for the use of property,
rights -of -way, and easements by duly authorized providers should be
granted absent unavoidable direct conflict with the department or
agency's mission, or the current or planned use of the property,
rights -of -way, and easements in question. Reasonable fees may be
charged to providers of such telecommunications services for use of
property, rights -of -way, and easements. The Commission shall
provide technical support to States to encourage them to make
property, rights -of -way, and easements under their jurisdiction
available for such purposes.
W
t,
Y v A4— . ��_. . � .r S'�'ti' ,.� ,'_� �tF .w� -'L�. �►, ys r� � �._a4 �a!`�h,r. -
It
K .... � � . .; n ! ` �rJ1LiSfJS'.�k,:.- _ � _ hl.� l d � � . r � ti. � + f ����'!�• ;jli;s�
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy
Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development
Kreines & Kreines, Inc.
December, 2000
Table of Contents
Table of Contents i
Acknowledgments ii
Introduction 1
The Situation in 2000 6
Definitions
12
Location
23
Siting
31
Design
43
Visibility
56
Mitigations
60
Regulatory Concepts for Applications
67
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page i
Acknowledgments
The staff who produced the personal wireless service facilities policy would like to thank all the citizens and agencies
who have participated in its preparation. We would also like to acknowledge the various County officials and staff who
have contributed to this document.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page ii
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Charles Martin (Chairman 1999 -2000 &
Vice -Chair 1998)
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. (Chairman 1998)
Sally Thomas (Vice- Chairman 1999 -2000)
Charlotte Humphris
David P. Bowerman
Lindsay S. Dorrier, Jr.
Walter Perkins
Albemarle County Staff
V. Wayne Cilimberg (Director of Planning and
Community Development)
David B. Benish (Chief of Planning and Community
Development)
Larry Davis (County Attorney)
Greg Kamptner (Assistant County Attorney)
William D. Fritz (Development Process Manager)
Margaret Maliszewski (Design Planner)
Jan Sprinkle (Chief of Zoning Administration)
Dan Mahon (Landscape Planner)
Albemarle County Planning Commission
William W. Finley (Chairman 1999 -2000)
Hilda Lee - Washington (Vice- Chairman 1998 -1999)
C. Jared Loewenstein (Chairman 1996 -1998)
Dennis S. Rooker (Vice- Chairman 2000)
Rodney S. Thomas
Tracey Christine Hopper
William "Pete" Craddock
William D. Rieley
William Nitchman
Albemarle County Staff
Kenneth Weaver (Manager, Office of Mapping, Graphics
and Information Resources)
Gus Colom (GIS Coordinator)
Consultant
Ted Kreines, AICP
Kreines & Kreines, Inc.
58 Paseo Mirasol
Tiburon, CA 94920
(415) 435 -9214
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page iii
Introduction
This Policy for personal wireless service facilities is based on the following:
• The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 preserves Albemarle County's zoning
authority to regulate the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless
service facilities ( "cell towers ").
• Albemarle County has significant natural, scenic and historical resources. Thomas
Jefferson chose Albemarle County for his homesite and as the site for the University of
Virginia. The reason for those choices is why many others have come to revere this
place ... and why County residents must be stewards of the land.
• Personal wireless service facilities are not well understood by some. This Policy is
intended to help the County, the public, and the wireless industry understand
planning and zoning for personal wireless service facilities.
There are reasonable and feasible options to highly visible personal wireless service
facilities and Albemarle County will require them.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 1
Introduction
Albemarle County ...
Land of magnificent vistas.
Place of rich history.
• Maintained through private stewardship.
Governed by a tradition of planning and zoning.
"The Rocks" Mountain at I -64 at Ivy Interchange.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 2
Introduction
Purpose, Principles & Intended Achievements
The purpose of the personal wireless service facilities policy is to establish policies and guidelines and to recommend
standards and approaches for Albemarle County to use in the review of personal wireless service facility applications.
Wireless carriers are encouraged to follow the ideas in this Policy in preparing applications for personal wireless service
facilities. Planning Commissioners, Supervisors and staff should follow this Policy when evaluating personal wireless
service facilities applications.
This Policy is intended to allow for the provision of personal wireless service facilities.
Regulations based on the following principles are recommended:
• The most important principle for siting personal wireless service facilities in Albemarle County is visibility.
Albemarle County should require that sufficient information be submitted with the application to enable the County
to measure the visibility of a facility. The less a personal wireless service facility can be seen, the more likely it is that
it will be approved.
• Personal wireless service facilities should not be located in Avoidance Areas.
• Applications for personal wireless service facilities in Avoidance Areas should be denied unless mitigated, sited,
located and designed so as to minimize visibility.
• Personal wireless service facilities should be located in Opportunity Sites.
• Applications for personal wireless service facilities sites outside of, but nearby, Opportunity Sites should demonstrate
why they couldn't be located in an Opportunity Site.
• Siting and design standards can be used anytime, but they are particularly useful for reviewing personal wireless
service facility sites when they are not in or near an Opportunity Site and not in an Avoidance Area.
A successful personal wireless service facilities policy will achieve the following:
• Protection of Albemarle County resources.
• A predictable outcome for personal wireless service facility applicants.
• Equal evaluation and review for all applicants.
• The development of standards to be used as findings for decisions on personal wireless service facility applications.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 3
Introduction
SUMMARY OF PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITIES POLICY
This Policy allows for the location of personal wireless service facilities throughout the County. The Policy encourages
the construction of facilities that have limited visual impact on the community.
- Visibility is the primary focus in the review of personal wireless service facilities. Facilities with limited visibility are
encouraged.
- Personal wireless service facilities should not be located on ridgetops or along the ridgeline and they should be
provided with an adequate backdrop so that they are not skylined.
- Personal wireless service facilities should not adversely impact resources identified in the Open Space Plan or
designated as Avoidance Areas.
- Personal wireless service facilities should utilize existing structures where possible.
- Personal wireless service facilities, if appropriately sited and designed, may be appropriate in any zoning district.
- Ground based equipment should be limited in size and be designed in keeping with the character of the area.
- Antennas should be mounted close to the supporting structure and be designed to minimize visibility.
- The personal wireless service facilities policy is primarily intended to address facilities providing personal wireless
service. Other types of wireless facilities are encouraged to adhere to this policy to the extent possible.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 4
Introduction
Summary of Proposed Regulatory Concepts
To enhance the implementation of this Policy, the following review concepts are proposed:
- Tier One Review. Administrative approval of personal wireless service facilities located within an existing structure
and having no exterior visibility.
- Tier Two Review. Planning Commission approval of personal wireless service facilities attached to an existing
structure or a "Treetop Tower'.
- Tier Three Review. Special Use Permit review by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors of anything
other than a Tier One or a Tier Two facility.
The following regulatory changes are also recommended:
At the time of preparation of this Policy each Zoning District contains minimum setbacks for all structures that can
only be varied by the Board of Zoning Appeals. This Policy recommends that the Planning Commission be authorized
to modify the setbacks for personal wireless service facility structures.
At the time of preparation of this Policy, the Zoning Ordinance requires that towers be setback from the property line
a distance equal to the height of the tower unless a modification is granted by the Planning Commission. This Policy
recommends that service providers be able to acquire easements around the tower a distance equal to the height of the
structure. If this easement is acquired no modification of the setback will be needed. If the easement is not obtained,
the wireless service provider would need to request that the Planning Commission grant a modification of the setback.
- Minimum submittal standards are recommended.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 5
The Situation in the Year 2000
Shown below are two photographs (one long shot and the other mid - range) of a "treetop tower ". This is an example of
the type of facility supported by the County.
Invisible personal wireless service facility Close up of the same personal wireless service facility
site on U.S. 29 south (long shot). site. Even though it is short, it works and, most
importantly, it was approved.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 6
The Situation in the Year 2000
The County supports co- location of personal wireless service facilities provided that it has no or negligible adverse visual
impact. The site below, while skylined and much taller than adjacent buildings and trees, does allow for the use of an
existing facility. Skylining of new facilities should be avoided.
The monopole in the middle of these vertical poles is at 5th Street and supports two dual - polarized
antenna arrays.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 7
The Situation in the Year 2000
Below is an example of the type of facility not supported by the County.
This is a tri- location of personal wireless service facilities near Boyd Tavern on a lattice tower. The
microwave relay can be used for backhaul by both Cellular and PCS carriers, which also use wireline
(telephone) for backhaul when it is readily available.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 8
The Situation in the Year 2000
Some wireless carriers want to serve County residents with tall towers.
The taller the wireless facilities are, the fewer the carriers have to build. The lattice tower in this
picture in Crozet is a photosimulation.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 9
The Situation in the Year 2000
When personal wireless service facility sites are smaller, they area t as easily seen, even though there may be more of
them. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 and State Law give localities the choice.
There are five different personal wireless service facility sites in this photosimulation.
Although there may never be any sites in this area, they have been photosimulated to
show how they can blend with the landscape. Albemarle County requires less visible
and less intrusive solutions such as those shown here.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 10
The Situation in the Year 2000
This Policy shows wireless carriers how to deploy wireless facilities in a manner that respects the Albemarle County
environment and the community's values. Albemarle County will approve those applications that comply with adopted
policies, plans, ordinances and this Policy and Albemarle County will deny those that do not comply.
Telecommunications facilities in the Pantops area have been successfully blended into the
built environment.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 11
Definitions
Definitions
Analog - In radio telephony, a process where voice messages are electronically replicated and amplified as they are
carried from the transmitting antenna to the receiving antenna.
Antenna - A whip (omni- directional antenna), panel (directional antenna), disc (parabolic antenna) or similar device used
for transmission and /or reception of radio frequency signals. Panel antennas are used by both Cellular and PCS carriers.
Avoidance Area - Locations in Albemarle County where visible personal wireless service facilities should not be located.
An avoidance area is not a "prohibited area," since there are conditions under which personal wireless service facilities
might be located in an avoidance area.
Backhaul - A method for relaying signals from one wireless facility to another and from the wireless facility to a common
carrier. Methods of backhaul include microwave relay and wireline.
Camouflage - A way of painting and mounting a personal wireless service facility that requires minimal changes to the
host structure in order to accommodate the facility.
Cellular - A mobile telephone service operating in the 800 MHz spectrum.
Co- location (Collocation) - The use of a common personal wireless service facility or common site by two or more
wireless license holders or by one wireless license holder for more than one type of communications technology and /or
placement of two or more personal wireless service facilities on adjacent properties.
Comprehensive Plan - The Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan establishes governmental policy to help guide public
and private activities as they relate to land use and resource utilization.
Concealment - To enclose a personal wireless service facility within a natural or man -made feature resulting in the facility
being either invisible or made part of the feature enclosing it.
Design - The appearance of personal wireless service facilities such as their materials, colors and shape.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 12
Definitions
Digital - Digital technology converts voice messages into digits (zeros and ones) that represent sound intensities. Because
natural pauses in the conversation are eliminated, more call capacity is realized than with analog and background noise is
minimized. Digital is not the same as PCS, since Cellular can be digital also. Siting and design approaches recommended
in this Policy are equally available to both Analog and Digital technologies.
Disguise - A personal wireless service facility designed to appear to be something other than a personal wireless service
facility.
Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radios (ESMR) - Private land mobile radio with telephone services. In the year 2000, Nextel
is the only ESMR carrier.
Entrance Corridor Overlay District - Section 30.6 of Chapter 18 (Zoning) of the Albemarle County Code establishes an
overlay district that regulates certain outdoor uses along significant tourist access routes and requires architectural review
for consistency with design guidelines.
Equipment Cabinet (Shelter, Shed) - An enclosed structure at the base of the mount within which is housed the
equipment for the personal wireless service facility such as batteries and electrical equipment.
Guy Wires - Strategically placed cables from a tower to anchors in the ground in order to secure a tower and to keep it
from shifting position.
Guyed Tower - A monopole or lattice tower that is tied to the ground or other surface by guy wires.
Lattice Tower - A type of mount that is self- supporting with multiple legs and cross - bracing of structural steel.
Location - The area where a personal wireless service facility is located or proposed to be located.
Mast - A type of mount that is thinner and shorter than a monopole.
Mitigation - The reduction or elimination of visual impacts by the use of one or more methods:
• Concealment.
• Camouflage.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 13
Definitions
Disguise.
Monopole - The shape of mount that is self- supporting with a single shaft of wood, steel or concrete and antennas at the
top. Monopoles are often called "towers" but they are different in that monopoles are a single shaft of material without
any other support structure.
Open Space Plan - A component of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan that consolidates all currently available
information regarding natural, scenic, historic, and agricultural/ forestal resources in the County in order to identify the
most important areas to preserve or to conserve as open space.
Opportunity Sites - Areas within properties where placement of personal wireless service facilities is encouraged by
Albemarle County.
Paging - Text messaging (and sometimes one -way voice messaging) that is sent to small receivers (e.g., beepers) from one
tall mount. Paging messages are not handed off from one cell to another cell as in the case of Cellular, Personal
Communications Services and Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio.
Personal Communications Services (PCS) - A form of mobile telephony provided in the 1900 MHz frequencies.
Personal Wireless Service - Any personal wireless service defined in the Federal Telecommunications Act which includes
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licensed commercial wireless telecommunications services including
cellular, personal communications services (PCS), specialized mobile radio (SMR), enhanced specialized mobile radio
(ESMR), as well as unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services.
Personal Wireless Service Facility - A facility for the provision of personal wireless services, as defined by Section 704 of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Platform - Physically, any base upon which elements, such as antennas, are placed. Technologically, the system
architecture around which a design is based.
Prohibited Areas - Many cities and counties prohibit personal wireless service facilities in some areas, such as residential
zoning districts. In Albemarle County, personal wireless service facilities are permitted in all areas. There are no areas
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 14
Definitions
where personal wireless service facilities are prohibited and no areas where personal wireless service facilities will be
automatically denied.
Radome Shield - A plastic housing within which antennas are placed. The fiberglass -like plastic material is signal -
transparent, thereby allowing antennas that are concealed to operate.
RF Isolator - A steel mesh screen that is radio frequency signal- opaque. They stop signals rather than reflect them. They
are used to keep one transmitter from affecting another. Use of an RF Isolator can allow for multiple transmitters on a
single pole or tower. A photo of an RF Isolator is shown on page 22.
Site - That portion of a subject property where a personal wireless service facility is to be placed. An acceptable location
may have several potential sites within it.
Siting - The method and form of placement of personal wireless service facilities on a specific area of a subject property.
Skylining - Locating a personal wireless service facility in such a way that the backdrop of the facility is the sky.
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) - A form of data transmission, dispatch or two -way communication used by companies
that rent space or time from the high mount of a SMR carrier. Used primarily for sending information, delivery vans,
truckers or taxis within a small, definable geographic area, the signal is not "handed off" to another cell as in Cellular,
PCS or ESMR.
Stealth - A wireless industry term for "hidden" or "undetectable."
Tower - In telecommunications, any tall structure used for the mounting of antennas is a tower.
Treetop Tower - A mount for personal wireless service facilities no more than 10 feet taller than the tallest tree within 25
feet of the proposed mount.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 15
This is not a diagram of a "tower ", it is a monopole.
These are the antennas
These are the equipment
shelters or cabinets
Definitions
The entire facility is called a "personal wireless service facility." Albemarle County is engaged in regulating the location
of personal wireless service facilities. It is not engaged in "antenna siting." The County's land use policies and
regulations deal with more than just "antennas" and regulation is concerned with more than just "siting."
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 16
Here are three commonly confused terms:
/--------------------- - - - - -7
Definitions
"Location" refers to a
property or general area
where a personal wireless / "Siting' refers to a special
service facility is to be placed. / x point on a property where a
personal wireless service
/ \ facility is to be constructed,
such as in the trees, or on the
roof.
"Design" refers to what the \ \
personal wireless service
facility will look like.
It is possible to have a well - designed personal wireless service facility that is perfectly sited but in a poor location. This is
why location, siting and design should be distinguished from each other. This Policy addresses all three concepts.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 17
It is the intent of Albemarle County to require the use of the least intrusive means possible to provide coverage.
The carrier
should
locate the
personal
wireless
service
facility here
and site
personal
wireless
service
facilities
within
trees.
The personal wireless service
facility should not be sited
along the ridgeline
The personal wireless
service facility should not
be sited at a ridgetop
Photosimulation of a monopole with dual - polarization in the Blue Ridge Mountain
area of Western Albemarle County.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 18
Definitions
The carrier
should
desi
personal
wireless
service
facilities
with dual -
polarized
antennas or
a less
visible
antenna
system.
These are personal wireless services, according to Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Personal Wireless Services
Commercial
Mobile Radio
Services
Cellular
PCs
Unlicensed
Wireless
Services
Enhanced
Specialized
Mobile Radio
Common Carrier
Wireless Exchange
Specialized Paging
Mobile Radio
Definitions
Cellular, PCS, Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio, Specialized Mobile Radio and Paging are considered "functionally
equivalent services" by the Federal Communications Commission. Before it was clarified by a court, this meant that
whatever zoning requires of any one of the functionally equivalent services, it must require of the others. However, a
federal appellate court found that paging was neither functionally equivalent with the others from a pricing point of view
nor from the distance the signal must travel. (Aegerter v. City of Delafield, 174 F. 3d 886 (7th Cir. 1999))
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 19
Definitions
Personal wireless services do not include other services, such as broadcasting or ham radio.
Personal wireless service facilities can go within trees. Leaves, particularly pine needles, tend to diffuse the signal, and
thereby attenuate it. Signals from antennas within trees work, they just don t go as far.
Why place personal wireless
service facilities in trees?
The reason is visibility. A
personal wireless service facility
site in trees is less visible than a
facility that is above the trees.
Visibility is not the same as
aesthetics.
Ton of monopole
PCS on a wood monopole in Bellair, along
U.S. 250 bypass.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 20
Albemarle County
has approved
numerous personal
wireless service
facilities in trees.
Co- location
Vertical co- location
is several carriers on
the same mount.
Two vertical co- locations in Gainesville,
Florida. Increased height and number of
positions make these very visible.
Definitions
Co- location which results in adverse visual impact is not
consistent with the goals of Albemarle County.
From a visibility perspective, co- location should be
discouraged.
Horizontal co- location is several
mounts in the same area.
Horizontal co- location at Carters Mountain, Albemarle
County. This results in what many people call an "antenna
farm" or "tower farm."
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 21
Below are examples of RF Isolators and how they are used to shield antenna from other antenna.
Definitions
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 22
Location
Location
Albemarle County developed within and around its mountain resources. Mountain resource areas, as designated in the
Albemarle County Open Space and Critical Resources Plan, should be avoided when locating personal wireless service
facilities.
Crozet with Bucks Elbow Mountain in the background.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 23
Location
Avoidance Areas have been identified by Albemarle County. These are areas that have resources of significance to the
County and where the unwise siting of Personal Wireless Service Facilities could result in adverse impacts. See the map
on page 26.
Albemarle County has identified those resources that are important areas to preserve or conserve as open space. These
resources are identified in the Open Space Plan, which is a component of the Comprehensive Plan. The Open Space
Plan's stated objectives include protecting "the County's natural, scenic and historic resources in the Rural and Growth
Areas," preserving and managing "the County's natural resources in order to protect the environment and to conserve
resources for future use," and preserving "the County's scenic resources as being essential to the County's rural character,
economic vitality, and quality of life." The placement, construction and /or modification of personal wireless service
facilities should be reviewed for compliance with the Goals and Objectives of the Open Space Plan. The precise
boundaries of resources identified in the Open Space Plan are less important than areas where a personal wireless service
facility could compromise the identified resources.
Photosimulation of a lattice tower located outside of the Southwest Mountains National Rural Historic District. The
Southwest Mountains contain multiple identified resources that are characteristic of Avoidance Areas.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 24
Location
Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan, Natural Resources and Cultural Assets, contains additional resources which are
not identified in the Open Space Plan. Among those resources are historical, mountain and scenic resources. Impact on
any identified resource must be evaluated for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Many historical features within
the County, while not having National or State designation, are of significant local importance.
Boyd Tavern, shown above, is an example of a structure with significant local importance.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 25
Agricultural/ Forestal Districts and land
in Conservation Districts should also be
;
considered Avoidance Areas. In
N ""
reference to Agricultural/ Forestal
Districts, the Comprehensive Plan states,
in part, Albemarle County agrees, when
possible, to protect those lands from
PC 11
intrusive land uses which threaten the
continued agricultural or forestry use of
'for
P
those lands the production of food
and other agricultural and forestal'
",.
products; and 'as valued natural and
ecological resources which provide
essential open space for clean air sheds,
,; ?
_ ,r
watershed protection, wildlife habitat, as
well as for aesthetic purposes.' ( §15.2-
4301 Virginia Code)."
r �
The map on this page shows the location
of Avoidance Areas, which include State
Scenic Highways, Scenic Rivers, Virginia
By Ways, National Forests, Historic
Districts, Agricultural/ Forestal Districts
and Conservation Easements.
Avoidance Areas may be modified as
Agricultural/ Forestal Districts and Conservation
Easements are established or amended.
f �r
Location
•\ \ 'fir
r
I�
O _
r—
f
r
8 miles
Map courtesy of the Piedmont Environmental Council
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 26
y 7
P
,
a a
Location
•\ \ 'fir
r
I�
O _
r—
f
r
8 miles
Map courtesy of the Piedmont Environmental Council
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 26
Location
The built environment of Albemarle County contains many potential Opportunity Sites, or man -made sites for personal
wireless service facilities such as rooftops and utility poles.
Opportunity Sites include those locations where existing structures provide siting for Personal Wireless Service Facilities.
The placement, construction and /or modification of personal wireless service facilities within an Opportunity Site is
encouraged.
Above is an example of an Opportunity Site. A personal wireless service facility is
located in the steeple of the St. Paul Church in Ivy.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 27
Electric transmission towers are another type of Opportunity Site.
Pictured is an antenna array on top of a transmission tower
along Barracks Road. While this represents use of an
opportunity site, the resulting design has visibility impacts that
could have been reduced or eliminated by using alternative
types of equipment and mounting techniques. Attachment to
existing structures should complement - not overwhelm - the
c Sri,r 4-,i—
Location
There are many more opportunities on
transmission towers in Albemarle County
such as this example along Barracks Road.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 28
Location
Power line corridors and utility easements have cut up some ridgelines in Albemarle County.
If a personal wireless service facility must be located on a ridgeline, as well as in a Mountain Resource
Area, then it should be placed on an available transmission tower (such as that seen here from Crozet)
or a location consistent with the Mountain Section Guidelines. The Mountain Resource Area is a section
of Albemarle County that is mapped in the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 29
Existing structures provide Opportunity Sites.
Buildings located on ridgelines may also be ideal
platforms for personal wireless service facilities such
as these structures in Ednam. The antennas could be
mounted on the roof.
Location
Structures that puncture low ridgelines are ideal
platforms for personal wireless service facilities. An
example is this Albemarle County Service Authority
Water Tank in Crozet. The antennas can be located on
the top or sides of the tank with the equipment
cabinets hidden by the vegetation.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 30
Siting
A personal wireless service facility need not be located only in an Opportunity Site if it is properly sited.
This monopole in Nix, although located on a high point of land, is virtually invisible
because it is sited in the trees.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 31
Siting
Careful siting may allow a facility to be located in multiple Avoidance Areas. The site shown below is located in a
Mountain Resource area and within an Entrance Corridor Overlay District. This photo is taken from a scenic overlook on
I -64. Use of an existing road reduced the amount of activity needed to construct the facility. The use of the mountain and
trees as a backdrop for the top of the facility eliminates skylining of the facility. Use of a backdrop can significantly
S _ r,i ^ •ti Jai -� = = to
reduce the visibility of the site as is evident below.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 32
i, 4 JI•
� � i L'•
. k •
r tau+ S l .
ti
S _ r,i ^ •ti Jai -� = = to
reduce the visibility of the site as is evident below.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 32
Siting
The antennas on this facility comply with the design guidelines on page 50. This further reduces the visibility of the site.
Wooded areas may be considered to be Opportunity Sites. However, wooded areas may also be within Avoidance Areas,
which may reduce the appropriateness of such an Opportunity Site.
A viewer may detect the photosimulated lattice tower on Brown's Mountain; however, the
photosimulated monopole in the trees in the right foreground takes advantage of an
Opportunity Site with limited impact. Facilities within wooded areas should be the same color
as the trees. This photosimulation uses black to increase visibility.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 33
Siting
Roof - mounts are personal wireless service facilities mounted on the roof of a structure. When the facilities are kept in
scale and color with the roof, their visibility is reduced.
Antennas that are
Two carriers are located on this roof in University Village. From a distance, the facilities are
barely visible.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 34
Siting
Siting a personal wireless service facility on a roof is not always a good idea.
This personal wireless service facility in Florida looks like a monopole, but it isn't. Guy wires
hold up the lattice mount. It is a guyed tower on the roof of a hospital.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 35
Siting
This building under construction may be ill- suited for an ordinary personal wireless service facility. However, if the
facility is properly designed to reduce visibility it may be a candidate for at least one roof mounted facility.
As discussed in the next chapter on Design, this building in Pantops has simple and
unbroken lines. Such a building is ill- suited for ordinary roof mounts. Camouflage,
concealment or disguise may be required.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 36
Water tanks are considered Opportunity Sites.
1
.r t
t
This co- location on a water tank in Illinois has
antennas on the top and on the side. The side of the
tank is better from a visibility perspective. (Photo
courtesy of Specialty Constructors Coatings, Inc.)
Siting
The Albemarle County Service Authority water tank in Crozet may be more suitable
for side - mounted antennas rather than whips or panels placed on the top.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 37
Siting
The most important guideline for siting personal wireless service facilities in Albemarle County is visibili .
• The definition of a well -sited personal wireless service facility is that it would be virtually invisible to most viewers.
Such a facility would be an improvement over a facility that is in the open and very visible.
• A poorly -sited personal wireless service facility is one that has visual impact.
• The degree to which a personal wireless service facility can be made invisible or the degree to which it has visual
impact is often the most important standard by which it can be evaluated.
Visibility is objective because visibility can be measured. Aesthetics is not suggested as a standard and should not be
used to evaluate personal wireless service facilities. Aesthetics is subjective and cannot be measured uniformly amongst
all viewers.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 38
Siting
Utility poles are considered Opportunity Sites.
w
Personal wireless service facilities could
Question:
How can personal wireless service facilities be
placed in an open field, residential environment
like this area in Crozet?
Answer:
The personal wireless service facility could be
placed in the wooded area across the intersection
shown in the photograph at left.
Even better would be to place personal wireless
service facilities on utility poles already found in
the right -of -way.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 39
Siting
Personal wireless service facilities can be placed on utility poles in rights -of -way. The use of dual - polarized (polarization
diversity) technology is available to both Cellular and PCS carriers.
Dual- polarized an :a.
Personal wireless service facilities on utility poles in rights -
of -way are almost invisible. This photograph is from Clyde
Hill, Washington, courtesy of Kirk Wines.
As can be seen in these photographs the use of
existing utility corridors may require replacement of
the existing utility poles.
Installing a personal wireless service facility on a utility pole may require
that the pole be changed from wood to steel. This photograph is from Clyde
Hill, Washington, courtesy of Kirk Wines.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 40
Siting
Method For Addressing Setbacks Due To Height
Provisions in the Zoning Ordinance require structures to be set back from the property line a distance equal to the height
of the structure unless a modification is granted by the Planning Commission. The siting of facilities should not create a
hazard to adjacent property or cause the over - development of property that results in an undue intrusion onto adjacent
property. In order to protect property abutting personal wireless service facilities, this Personal Wireless Service Facilities
Policy recommends that an easement be obtained on all property extending in all directions from the facility for a distance
equal to the height. This easement will acknowledge that the tower or its components may fall within the easement area.
(It is noted that failure of towers is extremely rare.) This easement will also allow for the falling of debris, particularly ice,
and equipment used during maintenance, installation and updating of the equipment. If an easement is not obtained, a
modification request for setback must be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Easement radius
Equals height
of tower
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 41
Siting
Method for Addressing Setbacks Due To The Zoning District Requirements
The Zoning Ordinance requires minimum setbacks from property lines for all types of structures. It is recommended that
the Zoning Ordinance be amended to allow the Planning Commission to modify the setbacks from the property lines.
Currently, only the Board of Zoning Appeals can reduce the required yard setbacks upon a finding that application of the
setback would create an undue hardship, a hardship not shared by other properties zoned similarly and that the variance
would not create a substantial detriment to adjacent property. These criteria limit the Board of Zoning Appeals' ability to
approve variances. Also, the criteria do not allow board members to consider benefits which may be achieved by
reducing the minimum setback. By allowing the Planning Commission to modify the setback, it may be possible to
achieve improved siting of personal wireless service facilities.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 42
Design
Once a personal wireless service facility is properly located and properly sited, it must still be well designed.
This is a microcell. It is well designed because it is small. It
could be located anywhere and sited almost anywhere.
Carriers would need several microcells to do the same job as
one tall tower.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 43
This is a "treetop tower." This
type of facility has been
successfully located throughout
Albemarle County. A typical
treetop tower is designed so that
no portion of the facility is more
than 10 feet taller than the tallest
tree within 25 feet. Typically, all
trees within 200 feet must be
retained except for those
identified for removal during the
initial review of the application.
This type of facility, due to its
limited visibility, has been
successfully deployed in areas
designated as Avoidance Areas.
Design
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 44
Design
Due to their high visibility, these are examples of facilities that generally do not meet the County's policy.
Lattice towers are capable of Guyed towers, capable of even greater
great height, but they are heights, require large expanses of land
highly visible. for guy wire anchors.
Lattice towers may be acceptable if
appropriately sited.
Guyed towers are commonly used
in more remote locations where
backhaul is not available. The dish
on the guyed tower at right is to
provide backhaul because wireline
is not available to do so. The use of
land based wirelines for backhaul is
preferred.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 45
Design
Ground - mounted monopoles and masts are acceptable for personal wireless service facilities.
Monopoles are acceptable, particularly
those where the antennas do not protrude
far from the pole. Because monopoles are
shorter than guyed towers or lattice
towers, the wireless carriers will require
more of them.
Masts are preferable, because they are
shorter and more slender than monopoles
and the dual - polarized antennas can be
kept close to the pole (and the equipment
can be buried). Because masts are shorter
than monopoles, the wireless carriers will
require more of them.
Both examples shown are for dual -
polarized antennas, which are
commercially available for both Cellular
and PCS applications.
Monopole Mast
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 46
Roof - mounted personal wireless service facilities are acceptable.
MR
MEMO MENOM MIMMM
(E) OOW_ PARAPET
i
Y DIN. SID PIPE„
I
S.W- PRYEp. PAINT
[-y.
TO YITON CMQR Or
(E) NULL AMISH
S
RELOGIM ANTENNA
=i
J[
(E) L iilH. M
NL INDIES
(E) EIY DDNN0- 2 10
PARAPET 3111.
2N', VLi.)
Y
-1 1
MT Orr EKSDNO PIPES
ENIINGING AROIE PARAPET
(E) Y DIP, SID PIK
RELOCATED ANTENNA MOUNTM (PEW ANTENNA SMAR)
Design
Roof - mounted facilities do not need to
project up. They can be flush - mounted on
the parapet or flush - mounted on a
penthouse as shown on this office building
in Arizona.
Panel antennas should be located so that
they do not peak above the roofline and
should be positioned below the parapet, as
shown in this drawing from GEZ
Architects Engineers.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 47
Antenna arrays are how the antennas are combined on a mount.
r�
a -s
ar
Design
This antenna array on Barracks Road is sometimes
called a "reindeer hat" or "top hat" array. These
types of antennas can be found on transmission
towers, lattice towers and monopoles.
These antenna arrays are provided for "spatial
diversity ", but they are highly visible and are
discouraged. These antenna arrays do not comply
with the design guidelines contained on page 50.
This is a dual - polarized or cross - polarized antenna
on 5th Street. It can provide for polarization
diversity and can do everything that the "top hat"
array can do. Dual polarization eliminates the need
for "spatial diversity ".
Dual- polarized antennas cannot be placed as high
and, therefore, more sites will be required.
However, they do comply with the design
1 guidelines contained on page 50.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 48
Design
Whip or omnidirectional antennas are acceptable. These antennas have the least visual impact when they are placed at a
distance. As a viewer moves closer to whip antennas, they become more visible and more intrusive.
Two whip antennas at a Cellular site in
California.
The antennas shown on the left do not meet the
mounting guidelines contained on page 50.
PCS site in suburban Seattle, Washington.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 49
Design
Siting on utility poles requires guidelines. Shown below is polarization diversity, which allows the antenna to be close -
mounted or flush against the pole. Both Cellular and PCS can use these dual - polarized antennas.
Protrusions from the face of the pole
should be no greater than one -half the
diameter of the pole itself and in no cases
greater than 12 inches. The pole should
be no wider than the minimum necessary
to support the proposed equipment
If antennas are enclosed in a radome
shield on top of the pole, the shield
should have a maximum overhang of 4
inches. The pole should be no wider than
the minimum necessary to support the
proposed equipment.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 50
Design
Personal wireless service facilities are composed of antennas and equipment. The equipment is housed in equipment
shelters, cabinets and areas that should be small and designed to blend with the surrounding environment or buried
underground. The County recognizes that differences exist between Cellular Analog, Cellular Digital and PCS equipment.
Each system should use the smallest equipment available and use sites and designs that minimize the equipment's
impact.
Equipmen
t cabinet
PCS equipment shelters, cabinets and areas (including
boxes, bollards, slabs, grille work and back -up power
supply) should not displace more than a girth (height plus
width plus depth) of ten times (in inches) the height of the
mast of pole (in feet). A 50 -foot mast or pole should not
have an equipment area with a girth of over 500 inches.
This photograph is an example of equipment on 5th Street.
These two equipment shelters in
Millbrae, California, on the crest of a hill
are for cellular. They are disguised as
garages. The equipment cabinet (at
arrow) on a concrete slab in the
foreground is for PCS.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 51
Design
Equipment shelters, cabinets and maintenance areas are where most of the cost of a personal wireless service facility is
Equipment is often placed in small, pre- fabricated
shelters or buildings. These two shelters for
cellular facilities in Sonoma County, California
must be air - conditioned. These types of facilities
may not be acceptable in some locations due to
visibility or other impacts on the adjacent areas.
These two PCS equipment cabinets in Gainesville,
Florida are smaller and lighter than cellular
shelters. They do not need air conditioning.
While less visible than facilities for cellular
facilities, their visibility may be inappropriate in
or near Avoidance Areas.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 52
Design
When an equipment shelter can't be buried or placed in a vault, it can be landscaped and disguised as a mini -shed.
This equipment shelter in Clyde Hill,
Washington, is almost totally below the
ground. Photograph courtesy of Kirk
Wines
This equipment shelter, to be built in New
England, will be camouflaged as a New
England Cottage with clapboards, shakes
and sash.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 53
Design
Equipment generally should not be allowed within a side yard or rear yard. With careful siting, buried equipment may
be appropriate within side yards or rear yards or in areas of high visibility.
A back -up diesel generator in suburban Seattle approved
to go in the equipment shelter ended up in the side yard
on a trailer.
When the equipment area is large,
or exposed, it should be buried in an
underground vault. This
photograph is an example of a
cellular equipment shelter near a
freeway in California. Only the
maintenance cabinet is above grade.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 54
Design
Access roads should be designed with care.
An access road to a personal wireless
service facility site through open country
in Sonoma County, California.
A power line swath that looks like an
access road to a hilltop setting at
Monticello. An access road should not cut
a large swath through a wooded area.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 55
Visibility
Visibility
Personal wireless service facilities that are perfectly located can still be highly visible, although a poorly - located site will
tend to be even more visible.
Personal wireless service facilities that are properly sited will almost always be less visible, but siting does not guarantee
invisibility.
Personal wireless service facilities that are well- designed should ideally call less attention to themselves, but it is possible
to design a site and still have it highly visible.
The personal wireless service facilities policy proposes a guideline of visibility so that each application for a personal
wireless service facility can be measured by its ability to be seen.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 56
Visibility
The location, siting and design of a site with limited visibility has the least potential for impacts. In order to minimize
visibility the backdrop of the facility must be considered. Facilities located on a ridge will be skylined and therefore will
be visible. Facilities located with a backdrop of trees such as the facility shown below have limited visibility and therefore
limited impacts.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 57
One measure of visibility is enhancement.
Visibility
This photosimulation of a site in New Hampshire
shows a tri- location on a lattice tower that might be
proposed anywhere in the Appalachian
Mountains.
This is an example of what this Policy considers
unacceptable.
This photosimulation shows a personal wireless
service facility disguised as a flag pole (minus a
flag) instead of a lattice tower. While this is not a
perfect solution, it is better than the proposal
above.
Because the flag pole is less visible than the lattice
tower, it is considered an enhancement over the
lattice tower.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 58
Visibility
Another measure of visibility is visual impact. Personal wireless service facility sites have visual impact more often than
they enhance the surroundings. There are three measures of adverse visual impact:
e
Obtrusive. The personal
wireless service facility
overwhelms its
surroundings as shown in
this photograph from
Gainesville, Florida.
Intrusive. The personal
wireless service facility
intrudes into its
surroundings as shown
in this photograph from
Portsmouth, New
Hampshire.
Incompatible. The personal
wireless service facility is out of
context with its surroundings as
shown in this photograph from
Hyannis, Massachusetts.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 59
Mitigations
A personal wireless service facility that scores highly on the visibility scale need not be rejected. Visual impact can be
mitigated in one of the following ways:
• Camouflage. This requires minimal changes to the host structure or the personal wireless service facility site's
setting to accommodate the personal wireless service facility. Treetop towers are a form of camouflage.
• Concealment. The complete enclosure of a personal wireless service facility so it cant be seen is considered
concealment.
• Disguise. Changing the appearance of a personal wireless service facility to appear to be something it isn't is
considered disguise.
The most important rule in mitigating visual impact is to avoid creating even more visual impact through an attempted
mitigation. For example, some rural communities use farm silos to house a personal wireless service facility. If the silo is
already existing, it could be an excellent example of camouflage or concealment. If a new silo were built only as a
disguise for mounting a personal wireless service facility, it would probably not be an acceptable solution in Albemarle
County.
Reducing the height or bulk of a personal wireless service facility could be considered a mitigation. However, to achieve
a true reduction in visibility, a substantial reduction in height and /or bulk would be necessary.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 60
An example of disguise.
This is a single user
personal wireless
service facility
disguised as an
obelisk in Irvine,
California.
If the obelisk were
already there, this
would be an example
of concealment. To
build such a
structure, solely for
the purpose of hiding
a personal wireless
service facility is an
example of disguise.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 61
Mitigations
The equipment is under
the planting bed.
The total cost of this
facility was
approximately
$1,000,000.
This type of disguise
may go too far for
Albemarle County.
Mitigations
Examples of camouflage. Camouflage requires forethought. The host structure should not be overwhelmed by the
personal wireless service facility.
This personal wireless service facility is
camouflaged as part of these signs on a
highway in Arizona.
service facility that is camouflaged as part of the GTE
Headquarters in Irving, Texas. It could also be considered
disguised as a flagpole, but it does not function as a flagpole.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 62
Mitigations
Below are unacceptable forms of camouflage. Antennas that are placed on light standards should emphasize the fact that
it is a light standard. These are more like monopoles with the lights attached as an afterthought. Attachments to existing
structures should not increase the height or bulk of the structure.
This is a "top hat" style personal wireless This personal wireless service facility has two
service facility on a stadium light in suburban dual - polarized antennas with a single floodlight.
Detroit.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 63
Camouflage is successful when the host structure is predominant as shown in these photographs.
Mitigations
This photograph shows a conventional side - mounted
personal wireless service facility on the parapet of an
office building.
This photosimulation shows a "chameleon" personal
wireless service facility on the same office building.
Both photographs courtesy of GEC - Marconi Hazeltine.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 64
Mitigations
Concealing personal wireless service facilities on historic sites may be acceptable as long as the historic site is not
threatened.
Ceriterport
United Methodist Church
Centerport, New York
Existing
New Ca1Umn FaCades lightening
mounted to brick arrester " }:ter
structure formed
to duplicate
existing wooden
column facade
moUnled On
vyistfng brick
IQ7 It above sea lever. r
LOS. , Northport & 1
Northport Harbor to
Easi. Greenlawn to
South. LLoyd Harbor.
& Hunlingtcn Harbor
to V1es 1. 0�z
60 feet spprcx.---j _w,-"
from ground ¢
}evei
Possible site for
PCS monopole
ornni antenna
replacing or within
weather vane
Meta) root [ca per}
to be replace. with
non rltetallio material
Series of
tin antennas
in array
pattern beneath
dupttcatton of
existing facade
covering
replacing
woad facade
d' containing
antenna and
mount
Flat plane
muftt beam
antenna
beneath
recessed
panel shapad
as existing
panel
This is a proposed tri- location of personal wireless
service facilities on a landmark church in
Centerport, New York. Proposed design courtesy of
GEC - Marconi Hazeltine.
• �, YL _-
3� ct
r ice.
u
Personal wireless service facilities can be concealed in
existing structures. The cupola of this church houses
a personal wireless service facility. The original
wood slats were removed and replaced with signal -
transparent material.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 65
Mitigations
Example of how a concealed personal wireless service facility is constructed. (The height of the antenna shown in the
photographs below is 30 feet above grade.)
Dual- polarized personal wireless service facility being installed
on the second floor of a motel in Marin County, California
The same personal wireless service facility
after it has been concealed behind a signal-
transparent shield.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 66
Regulatory Concepts for Applications
Tiered Approval System
Tier One - Personal Wireless Service Facilities located within existing structures.
Tier Two - Personal Wireless Service Facilities attached to an existing conforming structure or Personal Wireless Service
Facilities attached to a new structure no more than 10 feet taller than the tallest tree within 25 feet of the proposed
structure.
Tier Three - Personal Wireless Service Facilities attached to a structure other than described in Tier One or Tier Two.
Zoning Text Amendments would be required to implement these Regulatory Concepts and the review processes for each
Tier.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 67
Regulatory Concept
Tiered Approval Process.
This Policy proposes three tiers of review based on the type of facility proposed.
During the review of any type of facility, staff should conduct a field visit and document existing conditions. Any
conditions established during the approval process should be enforceable.
Tier One
Tier One facilities would require only the submission of an application for a building permit. Exterior renovations would
be limited to the replacement of existing materials with new materials that do not interfere with radio wave propagation.
New material should be substantially the same in appearance. If exterior renovations are required and the site is located
within an Entrance Corridor Overlay District, a Certificate of Appropriateness will be required from the Architectural
Review Board.
Tier Two
Tier Two facilities would require Planning Commission approval. Procedures for processing applications will need to be
developed as part of the zoning text amendment establishing the applicable zoning regulations. At a minimum, the
zoning text amendment should include the regulations that a Tier Two facility must satisfy and a procedure for notifying
abutting property owners. The regulations would be consistent with this Policy. If the site were located within an
Entrance Corridor Overlay District or an Agricultural Forestal District, the application also would be subject to review by
the Architectural Review Board or the Agricultural/ Forestal Advisory Committee, respectively. The Commission could
receive input from any other committees or individuals during the review of an application.
The Planning Commission's action on an application would be ministerial, i.e., the Commissions review would be
limited to whether the proposed facility complies with the zoning regulations adopted for Tier Two facilities. If the
application was determined to be in compliance with all applicable regulations, the application would be approved and,
with the issuance of the appropriate Building Permits, the facility could be constructed. An applicant whose application
was denied could appeal that decision to the Board of Supervisors.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 68
Regulatory Concept
Tier Three
Tier Three facilities would require the submission of a special use permit application. The application would be subject to
public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors in the same manner as all other special use
permit applications. The application would be reviewed for compliance with the provisions of the Personal Wireless
Service Facilities Policy and Chapter 18, Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Code.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 69
Regulatory Concept
Minimum Submittal Standards
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL STANDARDS FOR PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITIES (TIERS TWO AND THREE
ONLY)
The following minimum information must be submitted with any application for a personal wireless service facility in
order for it to be reviewed on schedule.
1. A completed application form.
2. Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for a personal wireless service facility. If there is no
recorded plat or boundary survey in existence, a copy of the legal description of the property and the deed book and
page number shall be provided.
3. Ownership information shall be provided. Easement holders shall also be identified and, if necessary, a document
acceptable to the County must be submitted containing the easement holder's written consent. In the event that the
ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including, but not limited to, the
name of a corporation, partnership or association, or in the name of a trust, or a fictitious name, a document
acceptable to the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing the special use permit application has
the authority to do so.
4. If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted containing the
owner's written consent to the application.
5. If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence of
the existence and scope of the agency.
6. Each applicant requesting approval of a personal wireless service facility shall submit a scaled plan and a scaled
elevation view and other supporting drawings, calculations, and other documentation, signed and sealed by
appropriate licensed professionals. The plans shall show the location and dimensions of all improvements,
including information concerning topography, radio frequency coverage, tower height requirements, setbacks,
drives, parking, fencing, landscaping and adjacent uses. The County may require other information to be submitted
in order to assess compliance with the ordinance and personal wireless service facilities policy. Additionally,
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 70
Regulatory Concept
applicant shall provide actual photographs of the site taken from the site toward the nearest residence and public
road as well as from public roads or properties toward the site.
7. The height of all trees within 50 feet of the facility.
8. Maximum height above ground of the proposed facility. This shall also indicate the maximum height above sea
level for the highest point of the facility.
9. Location of all residential structures and residential districts or rural area boundaries within 2000 feet of the
proposed facility.
10. Written or graphic description of the nature of the uses on properties within 2000 feet of the proposed facility. This
description shall include, but not be limited to, the nature and extent of tree coverage and foliage.
11. Surrounding topography within 2000 feet of the proposed facility. Such topographic information shall be at a scale
of not less than 1 inch equals 100 feet and the contour interval shall not be greater than 10 feet.
12. Design of the facility, with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of reducing or
eliminating visual obtrusiveness. The specific type of support structure shall be provided. Design, type, location,
height and configuration of all antennas proposed shall be provided. Future antenna additions shall be noted as
shall the design, type, location, height and configuration of all potential future antenna.
13. Proposed ingress and egress location and design.
14. Proximity to commercial or private airports.
15. Where site conditions permit the applicant shall conduct a balloon test within two weeks of application submittal.
This test shall consist of raising balloons to a height equal to the proposed tower. The balloons should be of a color
or material that provides maximum visibility. The applicant shall inform the Planning Department of the time of the
balloon test at least two days before the test is to occur to allow staff to conduct field visits during the test.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 71
Closing
Please remember that planning for Albemarle County is a work in progress. County officials and staff invite you to send
your comments, ideas and suggestions for this Wireless Policy to:
Albemarle County Department of
Planning and Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902 -4596
Voice: (804) 296 -5823
Fax: (804) 972 -4035
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 72