Hi Gang,
We recently received notice that one of our locations has received the
interest of our county planning department, who has determined that the
location requires a 'use permit' for a major impact utility location
(eg: Cellular telephone). Naturally, we strongly disagree with this
determination.
The site is in a remote location, on private property completely out of
view of anybody(*), solar powered, on a 25' mast, with only the most
basic of equipment installed including two access points with an omni
and a sector. Aside from being 'outdoors', really, there's no
resemblance to a 'cellphone tower' as the gear is equivalent to what
most people use for their home wireless networks, albeit with slightly
larger externally mounted antennas. The planning department DID NOT cite
any building codes or height restrictions, just that we seem to be
'transmitting' as well as 'receiving', and we're certain that the
determination has to do ONLY with the fact that it's a wireless repeater
and otherwise wouldn't receive any attention at all if it was a wind
generator, weather station or other application.
The substantial weight of the use permit process they wish us to go thru
is exactly that for a major cellphone site, complete with hefty
application fees, public hearings, zoning approvals, and the whole nine
yards. Assuming we made it all the way thru the process, we would then
also be required to build it up with severe site upgrades including fire
access and other features, which is simply too much overkill and we
would not be able to comply.
Isn't there some kind of exemption or otard-similar ruling or legal
guidelines from the fcc regarding this type of situation? I can only
imagine that the criteria cited would also apply to many, many other
uses of part-15 devices and that the regulations just predate (2001 in
our case) the real onslaught of linksys in every home. I also imagine
that there would be substantial damage if every wisp was required to get
cellphone tower permits for every single repeater in use according to
these strict interpretations. We're going to need more than common sense
here, we're going to need legal precedence or references to directly
refute this determination, and we would appreciate your help.
Thanks all.
(* We were turned in by a certain tin hat, who has been dogging us for
some time now and attempting to create sympathy for their extreme views
which we are sure you all are aware of. Just one more reason to not
share detailed system information with anybody)
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
