AR25-041 Staff Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The applicants explain that the location of this tower will allow this wireless communications facility (WFC) to integrate into the existing network of WCFs and allow for improved connectivity between facilities. This connectivity is referred to as a “mesh network,” and allows WCFs to transfer or “handoff” phone signals, text messages, and data streams more efficiently. This is central to the applicants’ needs to establish this WCF at this particular location. The WCF needs to be located where it can extend coverage and at the same time avoid excessive overlap in order to improve the overall reliability of the network. They argue that this location allows for minimal interference with taller vegetation that can block signals and is higher in elevation allowing the signals to travel further with minimal interruption. The applicants further state that this location is optimal as it places the WCF in a central location between existing and planned future WCFs. The criterion is met. 3. Lack of available urban and nonresource lands; The applicants acknowledge that the majority of the land in this location is exclusive farm use (EFU) and that there are nearby areas zoned as Acreage Residential (AR) and Special Agriculture (SA). They state that placing the WCF at the chosen site would avoid having a large WCF in a residential neighborhood where it might cause more disruptions to the residents and be more difficult to site due to required setbacks. Another factor is that the aforementioned AR and SA zones are lower in elevation – reducing the overall efficiency of the proposed WCF. The immediate area is not urban and there are no feasible non-resource lands available. The criterion is met. 4. Availability of existing right-of-way; The applicants state that due to the footprint for the WCF, placing it in the right-of-way (ROW) along Howell Prairie Road SE is not possible. However, they have secured sufficient right -of-way access for running the necessary utilities from the Howell Prairie RD SE to the proposed site. Additionally, they have negotiated with the land owners for additional ROW to allow access across the private land to the proposed site. The criterion is met. 5. Public health and safety; and The applicants argue that the public health threats would be minimal as these facilities generally do not cause adverse effects as they are unmanned, self-contained, and designed to be secure. They argue that from a public safety perspective, adding a WCF will increase the ability of the public at large to experience increased digital connectivity as modern society migrates at an accelerating pace away from traditional land based communications. The applicants provided statistics from US federal government agencies about the increase in reliance on wireless communications for general use, and in particular for emergency communications, as well as the importance of improving wireless communications networks. The criterion is met. 6. Other requirements of state and federal agencies. a. Costs associated with any of the factors listed above may be considered, but cost alone may not be the only consideration in determining that a utility facility is necessary for public service. Land costs shall not be included when considering alternative locations for substantially similar utility facilities and the siting of utility facilities that are not substantially similar. The applicants state that costs were not factors or part of the considerations for any of the criteria listed above. They state that they could have saved some initial costs if they had decided to place the WCF further north on the parcel, which would have resulted in shorter utility runs but chose the SE corner as noted in the reasons above. The criterion is met. b. The owner of a utility facility approved under this section shall be responsible for restoring to its former condition as nearly as possible any agricultural land and associated improvements that are damaged or otherwise disturbed by the siting, maintenance, repair or reconstruction of the facility. Nothing in this subsection shall prevent the owner of the utility facility from requiring a bond or other security from a contractor or otherwise imposing upon a contractor the responsibility for restoration. The applicants state that their lease agreements with the private landowners have provisions to restore the land that is disturbed by the construction, maintenance, or siting of the WCF. There is also language in the lease to restore the site and at the end of the service life of the WCF . The criterion is met. c. The applicant shall address the requirements of MCC 17.136.060(A)(1). MCC 17.136.060(A) (1) reads: