Zoning Articles

That Psycho Glow

A NEWSPAPER IN ENGLAND is reporting that a psychic has stepped forward to throw his support behind protesters who are opposed to the construction of a new cellular telephone tower in the city of Horrogate.

Uri Geller, a so-called “world famous psychic,” is known for bending and breaking metal and other solids with the power of his mind, moving compasses with the power of thought, causing seeds to grow in a matter of seconds, and using extrasensory perception to read another person’s thoughts.

In the Horrogate Advertiser Geller said, "I'm willing to do anything I can to help the Harrogate campaigners and protect the health and well-being of these children.”

Maybe he could use his psychic powers to bend or break the towers or use a divining rod to influence the thoughts of zoning officials. ■

Permalink      Zoning      Talk Back (0)      Track Back (0)     Print

Introducing the Kumbya 1000

A SHORT TIME AGO there was a discussion at the web site Slashdot.com regarding possible solutions to siting cell phone towers. Someone came up with the following idea:

"They could disguise the tower as an endangered tree and stick a fake Green Party hippie (inside) saving it."

Bull horn and protest signs sold separately. ■

Permalink      Zoning      Talk Back (0)      Track Back (0)     Print

For the Birds

THERE WAS A WELL WRITTEN article in MRT magazine by Robert Schwaninger Jr., of Schwaninger & Associates about the Federal Communication Commission’s investigation into whether towers pose a significant risk to migratory birds. Schwaninger represents several tower owners whose interests are affected by the FCC’s investigation into avian mortality.

Schwaninger’s article claims that of the 108 endangered and threatened species of birds, “only six are vulnerable to collisions with man-made objects.” He also reminds us that while the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has urged the FCC to create new standards for the tower industry, they also manage the taking of more than 15 million ducks and geese annually by hunters.

This is one of those articles that everyone involved in the zoning side of the business should read. ■

Permalink      Zoning      Talk Back (0)      Track Back (0)     Print

American Cancer Society & Towers

THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY has a web page with information about cell phone towers and the paranoid concern that they cancer. Another page on the same site also tries to ease fears that cell phones cause cancer. The American Cancer Society calls the notion a “myth.” Both articles are well written and provide sources of additional information.

While they misuse the wireless vernacular on occasion, the American Cancer Society effort is still noble and provides a good explanation why consumers need not worry. Both documents would make excellent handouts if ever faced with a health related question at a zoning meeting. Reasonable people would have a hard time disagreeing with the endorsement of the American Cancer Society. Then again, many of us make a career out of dealing with unreasonable people. ■

Permalink      Zoning      Talk Back (0)      Track Back (0)     Print

Concerns Over Navigable Airspace

I ATTENDED AN INTERESTING MEETING last week. Despite having a determination of ‘no hazard’ from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), despite meeting and exceeding all of the state an local requirements for tall structures, and despite already receiving zoning approval and a building permit, the local airport manager protested the proposed construction of our client’s tower. What’s worse, construction was due to start any day and delaying the project would cost our client thousands of dollars.

The concern that towers impact navigable airspace is often one of the most difficult hurdles to overcome, especially when the site is relatively close to an airport. Even if the FAA has given its approval, local airport managers and private airstrip owners will often argue that the tower is an obstacle and will harm the present and future plans for the airport. Luckily we knew how to combat this problem.

If you haven’t sifted through the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Accident Database, you should. A cursory review of this database will show that there have been very, very few aircraft vs. tower accidents since the NTSB began keeping records in 1962. There were only 65 (or so) aviation accidents involving towers despite more than 250,000 tower sites, 4,000 to 6,000 aircraft flying in the skies at any one time, and more than 50,000 aircraft operations in our country every day. You do the math. That seems like a mighty fine safety record to me.

In the 65 (or so) aircraft vs. tower accidents, the most prevalent cause cited by the NTSB Accident Database was pilot error. The second most common cause was mechanical failure to the aircraft prior to it striking the tower. In other words, something happened to the airplane in the sky and when it fell it had to hit something. In these few instances it hit a tower.

There’s more. If and when an aircraft was involved in mishap with a tower, the tower was usually a tall, guyed tower often greater than 300’ to 400’ tall. If you are attempting to zone a shorter cellular tower (especially if it is a monopole or self-supporting structure), this is an excellent point to make. Would the zoning officials prefer you locate your tower further away from the proposed site, requiring the tower to be taller and guyed so it poses a far greater threat to navigable airspace? I don’t think so.

The use of the NTSB Accident Database as a defense during a zoning meeting is only one of the many weapons one should be armed with before walking into the meeting. You should also:

1. Explain all of the steps your company took to ensure the proposed tower would not affect navigable airspace.

2. Explain the function of the FAA and the meaning of a positive determination (i.e. the structure is not greater than 1’ tall for every 50’ horizontal from the nearest point of the nearest runway, the structure does not displace a runway threshold, etc.).

3. Explain that the FAA solicits comments from local airport managers, aviation clubs and state agencies…and they still approved the proposed structure.

4. Explain how the site meets or exceeds all state and local requirements.

5. Demonstrate how other structures in the vicinity exceed the FAA’s ratio for 1’ tall for every 50’ horizontal from the nearest point of the nearest runway. Be sure to also research the airport at AirNav.com. The listing for the airport will detail structures that are considered obstructions. Also drive around the airport and look for other obstructions, including trees, water towers, buildings, silos, power lines, etc.

6. Be prepared to compromise if necessary. Offer to light the tower top with a red, non-blinking obstruction light instead of a full blown strobe or dual lighting system. Also offer to paint the tower per the FAA’s Advisory Circular # AC70/7460-1K.

Combating overzealous concerns that your tower will impede navigable airspace can be one of the most difficult zoning hurdles to overcome. Knowing the facts and doing your homework, however, can result in success. ■

Permalink      Zoning      Talk Back (0)      Track Back (0)     Print

Tower City USA

THERE ARE ONLY FIVE municipalities in the United States with the word 'tower' in their name: Tower City, ND, Tower City, PA, Tower Hill, IL, Tower Lakes, IL and the small town of Tower, MI.

I wonder how many towers are in each place. More importantly, I wonder if any of them ever had a tower moratorium. ■

Permalink      Zoning      Talk Back (0)      Track Back (0)     Print

.00218 Times Less

EARLIER THIS YEAR Morristown, NJ newspaper, the Echoes-Sentinel, quoted a health physicist regarding a proposed 135-foot Nextel Communications tower. She said it was "considered safe and would not pose any health threats."

Alice Fey Elwood said the antennas would produce "a maximum emission of rays less than 1.2 microwatts per square centimeter, which is significantly less than the 550-microwatts per square centimeter limit that is considered safe by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)."

A useful bit of information if you ask me. ■

Permalink      Zoning      Talk Back (0)      Track Back (0)     Print

Claims and Allegations

JUST WHEN YOU THINK you've heard every fairy tale and crazy notion regarding cell sites a new one rears its ugly head. This one comes from across the pond and has more to do with carbohydrates than it does with common sense.

The BBC has reported that a baker in Whitstable, England is protesting the construction of a new cell phone tower claiming it will ruin her bread. Bakery owner Ingrid Greenfield suggests that the RF emissions from the antennas on the tower will "disrupt subtle forces which help make the loaves (of bread)." You see, Ms. Greenfield's bread is made without yeast. She instead uses "biodynamic" ingredients and it is "grown out of a spiritual understanding of nature."

When I was a kid I remember my mom telling me to be very quiet when she was baking bread. Otherwise, she warned, the bread would collapse and the loaves would be ruined. Thinking back I don't ever recall a loaf of bread collapsing in our house. I wonder if it was just a ploy to keep me quiet.

Likewise, it seems, Ms. Greenfield's claims are a ploy…only more sinister. Does anyone honestly believe that a cell phone antenna will have any effect on bread, cosmic or otherwise?

To be certain, I did some investigating of my own. I called the Dunkin' Donuts across the street from the WGN-AM radio tower in Elk Grove Village, IL. I'm confident Dunkin' Donuts doesn't us biodynamic ingredients, but they do make their donuts with a spiritual understanding of those who have an addiction to sugar.

The employee I spoke to said he managed two other Dunkin' Donuts in the greater Chicagoland area, too. He admitted he could not tell a difference between the donuts made in St. Charles, IL and those made across the street from WGN’s 50,000 watt blow-torch in the sky.

I wonder if Ms. Greenfield knows that a cell phone transmitter uses only 50 watts of power; 1,000 times less than the WGN tower. Ms. Greenfield, however, wasn't available for comment. Neither was the butcher or the candlestick maker. ■

Permalink      Zoning      Talk Back (0)      Track Back (0)     Print

No New Antennas on Tower

IT IS NOT UNCOMMON for some to oppose the construction of a new tower. But here's a story where a town in New Mexico has opposed the installation of antennas on an existing tower.

According to an article in the Mountain View Telegraph, Nextel Communications approached the Town of Edgewood already in 2003 to co-locate some antennas on an existing 180' monopole. The tower, which was legally constructed in 2001, is now out of compliance with the town's new zoning ordinance. The Edgewood Town Council denied Nextel's application because they felt the existing tower "is out of compliance with setback, visual buffer and safety requirements, which means modifications cannot be made to the existing structure."

According to Richard Comie of the Center for Municipal Solutions, the only way to bring the tower into compliance would be to tear down the old one and put up a new one, costing the tower owner somewhere in the range of $140,000 on top of the $130,000 already invested in the existing tower.

Mountain View Telegraph | Moriarty, NM | 4/28/2005

It's one thing to oppose a new tower due to aesthetic reasons, but to hold a wireless provider and its customers hostage because it did not have the foresight to have a telecommunications ordinance in place prior to 2001 is ridiculous.

Let's hope more communities don't deny requests for co-location for the same reasons. ■

Permalink      Zoning      Talk Back (0)      Track Back (0)     Print

A Story for the Birds

I THOUGHT TOWERS were supposed to be bad for birds? That may not be the case according to an Associated Press article seen today in several Oregon and Washington newspapers.

It seems Port Orchard, WA city council, however, will only allow Cingular Wireless to do so if they can safely catch a family of lime-green parrots who have established a home on the tower.

The news report said that the parrots, numbering more than 20, may have escaped on the way to the pet store. Smart birds, if you ask me.

I hope they don’t fly into the tower by accident. ■

Permalink      Zoning      Talk Back (0)      Track Back (0)     Print

SkyLink Networks, Inc. Copyright © 2005. All Rights Reserved.