One way to do it is... You get the tower up via HAM rules, and don't provide commercial use. BUilt it just large enoug that it would hold only your antennas.
Then after the fact.... There are some local code issues that often incourage someone to attempt to find a pre-existing structures to colocate on, prior to being authorized to build a new tower. Argue, for them to expand the permit for the pre-existing HAM tower, to one allowing limited commercial use for your antennas, in trade for not proposing and building ANOTHER ugly larger tower right next to it. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband ----- Original Message ----- From: "Blake Bowers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:10 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem > Reasonable is more often than not going to be > based on what a similiar tower would lease > similiar space in a similiar area. > > And its always a good idea to involve an > attorney any more. > > > Don't take your organs to heaven, > heaven knows we need them down here! > Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:58 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem > > >> Who defines reasonable? I would justify that our costs in the >> construction of the tower, namely permitting and engineering studies >> required are part of the "Rent". Just like a building, I wouldn't rent >> it less than it costs to construct it. That doesn't make sense. At >> $1000/mo, it would take nearly 68 months to pay for costs. A 5-year >> lease is 60 months. >> >> I am not a lawyer, and I would definitely involve one if the situation >> arose. >> >> Eric >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Blake Bowers >> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:41 AM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem >> >> And you would be sued, and you would lose. >> >> Reasonable accommodations have to be made for >> collocation. If your competitor is required by the >> town to collocate, and you unreasonably keep him >> from complying with the city statutes, he has firm >> legal footing to pursue you. >> >> A few quotes for comparable space at other locations >> and he has you. >> >> Of course, this is only where you are required to provide >> reasonable accommodations - if you build a tower where >> there are no such requirements tell the guy to pound sand. >> >> Don't take your organs to heaven, >> heaven knows we need them down here! >> Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Eric Rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:07 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem >> >> >>>I would personally allow co-location, but my rates would be very >>> inflated. If the town stated $10 was fair, I would counter >>> with..."Because of your requirements, you have put me at an economic >>> hardship. Therefore, any tenants would be required to pay the costs." >>> I would then set the rental rate at $1000+/mo to keep competition off. >>> If the town wants on there, they are the ones that put the requirement >>> and elevated constructions costs. At $68,000, that is a lot of >> monthly >>> rents and would be justified. >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> On >>> Behalf Of Joe Fiero >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:02 AM >>> To: 'WISPA General List' >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem >>> >>> Clear as day in the ordinance. >>> >>> I agree, but there goes another $10 grand to challenge that provision >> of >>> the >>> ordinance. >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> On >>> Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:58 AM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem >>> >>> They cannot require colocation, that is considered a "taking". >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Joe Fiero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem >>> >>> >>>> My first question is, where is this taking place? >>>> >>>> I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first >> time >>> we >>>> had been classified as a "telecommunications facility", and been >>> require >>>> to >>>> go through the extensive permitting process. >>>> >>>> The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had >>> experienced >>>> in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction >>> made >>>> between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems >>> to be >>>> coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower >>> giants >>>> act >>>> as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they >> perceive >>> as >>>> their piece of the pie. >>>> >>>> In this new world order everyone gets to "eat". And we are the ones >>> they >>>> expect to provide the meals. >>>> >>>> First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the >>> municipality >>>> could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the >>>> permitting process. That includes paying for their engineers, >>> lawyers, or >>>> any other costs they incur for "experts" to testify at our hearings. >>>> >>>> As they depleted this fund we would be notified when the balance fell >>>> below >>>> $2500 and then required to replenish the funds within 5 business >> days. >>> >>>> That >>>> was in addition to the $5000 non-refundable permit fee for a new >>> facility, >>>> or a $2500 fee for an existing facility. It also had nothing to do >>> with >>>> building or construction permits. >>>> >>>> After the permit was granted, we were still required to maintain at >>> least >>>> $2500 in this escrow account so the municipality would have available >>>> funds >>>> to, at their discretion, order future inspections and studies to >>> assure >>>> our >>>> continued compliance. This was arbitrary, and completely at their >>>> discretion. Effectively, they could spend our money any time they >>> wish >>>> and >>>> there was no means to appeal the action. >>>> >>>> All this hooplah over a 70 foot free standing tower that was being >>> placed >>>> on >>>> a hill 3/4 miles outside of town on more than an acre of property >> that >>> we >>>> were buying for the purpose of placing this tower on it. >>>> >>>> Additional requirements included mandatory core sampling to ascertain >>> the >>>> quality of the soil and assure it is sound enough to support a >>> structure, >>>> A >>>> visual impact study that includes floating a balloon and taking >> photos >>> of >>>> it, coordinated with a map by GPS points, that required no less than >>> 58 >>>> photos be taken. >>>> >>>> In addition to the municipal engineer, we had to provide our own >>>> engineering >>>> report. The fact that the tower was available stamped was not good >>>> enough. >>>> It had to be a local engineer who told us he would do his best to >> keep >>> his >>>> fees as close to $10,000 as possible. >>>> >>>> They wanted the engineering to cover the foundation, structure, each >>>> antenna >>>> both current use and planned, road design, secondary egress, RF >>> emissions, >>>> and even an environmental impact study on the area we would disturb >> to >>> >>>> place >>>> the tower. This was to include a foliage replacement and erosion >>> control >>>> plan. >>>> >>>> Mostly, this tower was being sited to use unlicensed spectrum and up >>> until >>>> now I never came across a telecom ordinance that specifically >> included >>> >>>> that >>>> spectrum. In most cases they specify by stating something like >>> "cellular, >>>> SMR, paging, broadcast", or some other specific descriptors. >>>> >>>> One of the most disturbing aspects of this was that we had no control >>> over >>>> who used the tower when we were done. The ordinance specifically >>> calls >>>> for >>>> us to build the facility for collocation and gives the municipality >>> the >>>> right to determine who collocates and what their "fair value" is for >>>> collocation. There was nothing preventing the mayor's son from >>> setting up >>> >>>> a >>>> LPTV station, or a competitive WISP, and requiring us to house his >>>> operation >>>> at our site for $10 per month. >>>> >>>> You are 100% correct. This new generation of ordinances for telecom >>>> facilities make no distinction between the mom and pop garage or feed >>>> store >>>> that wants to put up a 50 foot tower for his 2-way to his trucks, a >>> WISP, >>>> or >>>> a large telecom facility being sited by a nationwide service or >>> operator. >>>> >>>> In fact, this particular ordinance did not apply to just towers. It >>>> included any placement of any radiating device in any spectrum. That >>>> means >>>> if you deploy a mesh network in this town you are required to obtain >>>> permits >>>> for each and every node you place. >>>> >>>> With respect to OTARD, I have had quite a bit of experience with it >>> over >>>> the >>>> years. I have challenged CC&R's from condos and townhomes as well as >>>> township ordinances for anything from yagi antennas for 2-way clients >>> to >>>> reach a repeater, to 10 foot satellite dishes, to DBS and even >>> satellite >>>> Internet services. Each was successfully resolved because of the >>> strength >>>> of OTARD. >>>> >>>> However, OTARD does nothing for you and I as the operator of a >>> commercial >>>> antenna, no matter it's size or intent. OTARD applies only to the >> end >>> >>>> user. >>>> >>>> Now that this has reared its ugly head for the second time to me I >> see >>> a >>>> trend. We solved the issue by not building in that location. We >>> moved >>>> outside of town and received a county level permit with no questions >>>> asked. >>>> >>>> For the record, this was not NY, Chicago or LA. It was a small town >>> of >>>> less >>>> than 4000 on the Ohio River that covers less than 1.2 square miles of >>>> land. >>>> >>>> I think we, as a group, need to be proactive in this area before we >>> are >>>> shut >>>> out of locations. Even existing sites could become untouchable with >>>> exorbitant fees and unduly restrictive requirements. It may be time >>> to >>>> approach the FCC, in conjunction with other industries such as 2-way >>> radio >>>> retailers, to assure that low impact telecommunications facilities >> are >>> not >>>> painted with the same brush as the monoliths built by the cellular >>>> companies. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Joe >>>> >>>> Joe Fiero >>>> CEO >>>> >>>> NuTel Broadband Corporation >>>> 769 Basque Way Suite 650 >>>> Carson City, Nevada 89706 >>>> >>>> Direct-732-364-4161 >>>> >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> On >>>> Behalf Of Isp Operator >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:38 AM >>>> To: wireless@wispa.org >>>> Subject: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem >>>> >>>> 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/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> ---- >>> ---- >>>> 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/ >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> ---- >>> ---- >>> 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/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> -------- >>> 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/ >>> >>> >>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> -------- >>> 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/ >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> -------- >> 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/ >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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/ > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
