Agenda - 09-03-1996 - VIII-G - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

31 July 23, 1996 Page 2 these facilities. The approach suggested-by the current draft zoning amendments is to minimize the number of towers by requiring companies to share towers. The economic benefit of co-location to wireless companies is so great that voluntary co-location has been practiced for several years. The reason most companies have not objected to the mandatory co-location in your current ordinance is because they follow this procedure in the normal course of business-. Tower proliferation is not a function of lack of co-location; it is a product of existing wireless technology. In this regard, I have set forth below some observations for your consideration. a. Limitations of Wireless Technology. The biggest cause of tower proliferation in all areas is the nature of wireless technology and the number of companies desiring to provide this technology to the public. The number, height and location of transmission towers is dictated by customer demand, topography, and the low power technology used to provide conventional cellular and PCS service. Based on my experience over the last eight years as North Carolina general counsel to Centel/Sprint/360° Communications and special zoning counsel to Sprint Spectrum PCS in Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Jersey, I estimate that the failure, or inability, of a company to locate on existing towers or structures accounts for less than five percent of the new towers constructed. The reason most new towers are constructed is the company's need for a transmission facility in a certain geographic area where there are no existing towers or other structures suitable for the transmission facility. No amount of governmentally mandated or encouraged co-location can change the fact that, in a predominantly rural area like Orange County, most companies will need to build new transmission facilities to serve their customers.. bL. - Co-Location Policies. Most local ordinances, including the proposed amendments to the Orange County Code, focus their attention on "forcing" companies to attempt to co-locate on existing towers or facilities. While there is nothing wrong with these regulations, they will have little effect on tower proliferation. These regulations presume that the wireless communications companies have some desire to avoid utilizing existing facilities in their search areas. This is untrue. The reason the wireless communication companies do not object to co-location policies generally is because they do it now. There is, on the average, a cost savings of approximately $300,000 every time a company can utilize an existing tower. The cost savings will exceed this $300,000 estimate in