DENVER-Wireless carriers in Denver now are required to take proactive steps with the community if they want their towers and antennas placed in certain areas of the city.
The Denver City Council approved last week a new zoning ordinance that requires wireless operators to notify surrounding property owners if they choose to seek an exception to setback and separation rules.
Like other communities, Denver is faced with having as many as seven wireless providers: AT&T Wireless Services Inc., AirTouch Cellular, Sprint Spectrum L.P., Western Wireless Inc., U S West Communications Inc., NextWave Telecom Inc. and Radiofone PCS L.L.C. Homeowners have become more vocal with the city council as more towers and antennas infringe on residential areas.
The new ordinance, unanimously passed by the city council, bans towers and antennas from residential zones and requires carriers to construct them at least 500 feet from those areas. Previously, carriers were allowed to construct towers in residential areas. The new law also requires carriers to position their towers and antennas at least 1,000 feet from another tower, a move that makes it necessary for operators to collate.
Denver’s wireless carriers, working closely with the city since January, disagreed with the city over these two issues and were against the city’s proposed procedure on how exceptions to the ordinance would be handled. The new ordinance is a collaboration the industry is pleased with, said Richard Abels, director of communications and public affairs for AT&T Wireless in Denver.
If carriers want to seek exceptions to the new ordinance, they must notify nearby neighborhood associations and neighbors of their plans via letters and a posted notice. Neighborhood complaints can spur a public meeting between the property owners, the company and zoning officials, which the zoning administrator will take into account when making a recommendation.
“This [law] essentially reduces the impact on residential areas by encouraging use of alternative tower structures and antennas,” said John Koswan, Denver’s zoning program manager. “It makes for less visually obtrusiveness of towers that will still go up, and it gives [the people] an open public process.”
“We still maintain, as we always have, that we are a company that plays by the rules,” said Bob Kelly, spokesman for Sprint. “It puts more obstacles in the way of expanding, but we will pursue our buildout plans aggressively … It’s too early to tell if our deployment plans have changed.”
Sprint still is having a difficult time dealing with the city council in Medina, Wash. A year ago, the company filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Seattle challenging a six-month moratorium on tower building, calling it a violation of the federal telecommunications law. Sprint now is back in court because the city has prevented it from obtaining certain permits.
“We have refiled the lawsuit in Medina for violations we believe the city has done against the federal communications act,” said Kelly. “We think the community is not playing by the rules. The federal government is very clear on when a city can block antennas.”
In Florida, PrimeCo Personal Communications L.P. confirmed that it has filed lawsuits against the City of Coconut Creek in federal and state court. The personal communications services provider is opposed to the city’s new ordinance pertaining to occupational license taxes.
The company claims the ordinance violates several federal and state laws, including the federal telecommunications act.
