HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 07 28 Regular Item N
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM N
Add On
REGULAR X
CONSENT
INFORMATIONAL
July 28.1997
Meeting
MGR. IDEPT
Authorization
PURPOSE: City Manager requesting the City Commission to address the Mayor's veto of July 21,1997
re2arding Telecommunications Tower Ordinance #645.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this Agenda Item is to have the Commission address the Mayor's veto of the
Telecommunications Tower Ordinance #645.
CONSIDERA TIONS:
The Commission passed the third reading ofthe Telecommunications Towers Ordinance # 645 at
its July 14, 1997 Commission Meeting. The Mayor has chosen to veto the Telecommunication
Tower Ordinance.
FUNDING: Not Applicable.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Commission take whatever action it deems necessary.
IMPLEMENTATION:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
Mayor's veto letter of July 21, 1997
Telephone message from Mayor Partyka
Mayor's fax of July 28, 1997
COMMISSION ACTION:
Page 1
. ,07/Z4/87 03rZS
P. 001
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
...._.....-..__....-._------_...,_.~._._._--_.-...~ ....,._,.---~-----
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708.2799
Telephone (407) 327.1800
-~
OI<'FICE OF TIll MA YOR
"
July 21, 1997
- ,
i
: f,
I r
1 :~
i t,.'
By notice of this letter which is within 10 days, according \.0 City Charter I I am vetoing
I .
: i:1
't
:*
,
l
. i'
i:
'Mt
l'
'~
Ordinance 645 ( the "telecommunications towers II ordinance), which wa~ passed by t.he
J
City Commission on July 14, 1997.
1 will provide a written response concerning my Vl;to at the next. regular commission
meeting.
;
i
g
1
11
fl
~l
~,
,fh
'I'
t
J.
~,
-!A'
'.'.
., I
~:
4'
'~i
,
Mayor, City of Winter Springs
~\NTE.c;>
Cf: y-..,,~~~
.)..(~~\ \7:
$ . ,~)~
I"'~\JJ
~.
'J':'l..ORIOi>'-
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799
Telephone (407) 327-1800
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Via Telephone
By notice of this letter which is within ten (10) days,
according to the City Charter, I am vetoing Ordinance
Number 645 "Telecommunications Tower Ordinance"
which was passed by the City Commission on July 14,
1997.
I will provide a written response concerning my veto at
the next regular Commission meeting.
~ ? 'fJaAkgf;-
@ HI(, Paul P. Partyka
Mayor, City of Winter Springs
GOd Wd 9S:80 L6-L2-LO
;;I'
A\NTe:'1i-
1c1~~
/t(:-' .~~~~-. \')~I
10 ~ ~
1 -~ .. ____~
',' ''''on:.:.-MQ ,,' {j
_\' '19S~ .... '/
--~~~
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
'1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708.2799
. re.rephone (407) '327-1800
First of all, I regret that I can not be present to read this statement. But business. has tak~n m~ out
of the country. I have asked Deputy Mayor, David McLeod ,~o read the f?llowi~g...
Dear City Commissioners,
This ~xplai,ns my reasons for v~toil1g Ordinance 645 which deals with teleCOl~mw~cati('ll1s
:towers. The iss\.les that need to be addressed as it pertains to commtu1ications towers are:
1. They should have minimal impact on our visual environmental quality of life. 2. Th~y should
;provide tr.e communications needs for our citizens. 3, We s,hould make informed deCi~iol1s
based on good, factual, and credible data. We need to answer all three statements pos{tively to
:pass a sound ordin,ance, All other considerations are secondary.
The representatives of the communications industry have done a poor Job of givin~:nhis'j,citis
staff and this commission good and complete data. Without this data, an informed ~ecij)ion
cannot be made. I submit to the commission that the industry is not being. a good busi.n~ss
. citizeri since it has not given u:~ the data. In fact, they have implied that anything that ~;e do,
shQrt of what they would like, would force a legal suit. That is eX,tremely unfair and continues to
be the crux of the problem in this entire towers issue. I have conferred with s~verar, .'
communication towers experts that deal with issues similar to what we' have before us , hi.
, reviewing what we have requested from 'the industry, they have said it is proper and reasonable to
demand and get the information. These experts did state that the towers placement iss'u.i:1 is
, comp~icated due to factors of band width, geography, number of users, etc. .gut tha,t only
reinforces our neec:i to get the information. It's very presumptu01.1S of them arid irritating ~o me
that the infonnation is riot being given becaus~ it may be so complicated that we cannot figurt': it
out for ourselves, The responsibility lies with the industry providers to .make it understandable
for us by giving good explanations versus not 'giving the information. I'm confi~ent th~
. ~bmrpission can assi!l:J.ilate the data properly an~ ultimately make a decision b~st fOi'the city's
residents. Without the data, we cannot in good conscience m'ake an informed. deci'slon and, .
therefor~, should not be forced to do so. Simply stated, no one has proven to me that vve need
even one tower in the city, let alone five towers. I urge the city commission to deinand c,omplete
data from the telecorrununication companies before,enacting ,a towers o:rdiriance. .'
. Given the above background, there are some specific issues that I have concerns \Vlth: .
. .
1. The distance between towers and residential sttuct1J.res be a ntinimum of 125%,oftlje tower
, height or 225 feet is grossly insufficient. The simple question to ask yo.urself is...Do YQu wan.! a
tower 70 yards away from your house? I don't. It's not fair to citizens.' Orlando /Orunge County
requires 3-5x height of the tower. I would propose we do it similar to that. . Tliree hundred yards
makes it more palatable. Furthermore, our planned ordinace reads...We are to notify people with
, public notices that are located within 3x the tower height area (pg, 8, (f)(8). This implies that the
minimum currently set is insufficient.
',2'd
,. .
W~Ev:80 L6, 82 lnr
,."t( '..~. -I ,-'
, '
2. \Ve carmot determine,. based on current data, the correct number of tOvvers nce(kd in llLl:l' .e,ity
either short term or long tenn, W:e have requested data from the providers to show J.)l'o,iect~d
llsage. We keep getting answers that it depends on service, on the geography, ~tc. . Wt=11 it' is 1'11y
belief, that we ~hould get a range of data to show all significant pos~i'bilities for the vai-iow;
equipment on our'terrain, I'm sure the facts will lead us to the proper cOl1,clllSiol1. l'l' we dpllit- get
the facts, then we should not pass an ordinance.
3. Antenna locations should not have a stipulation, "to be built only on city land with builctOL\t
before n.ew locations are a~thorized". Any location tha~ meets our srated goul of .minjmal.
intrusion should be considered. ft;gardless. of property ownership, OLlr goal should not b~' to . .
make r~venues for the city but to insure that our residents' quaiity ofenvlt'r::l11l11cnt be prntl.:;~ctd ,If)
much as possible. For the relativ.ely insignificant revenues per hOllSeholq. versus pJ'o~(.~ctjrf:; the
visual.'environment, I believe, the overwhelming support would be, to protect th~ enviro-llrnerl't
,. for $5-10 more a year in taxes. :
4. We should use stealth. locations as much as possible, Locations such us chu.rch'5tc~ple~;,
utility towersl talI light poles (all are being done in other parts ofthe country) should bo ,:.
investigated, by potentia~ providers before towers are requested. U ?ing stealth locatic'll1s r~1HY
minimize or eliminate the need for towers. .
5: The number of tower~/tower locations are too -many, As stfned ahov~ 'better' dattt i S l1i..':~(Jc:d tn'
make t~s decision properly, Furtherntore, authorized tower locations adjacent lo our Ci'tY'I~h'ouid
be considered in determining our needs. Those locations may be sufficient f(,)l' the lic~~ds clf the
public without putting additional visual pollution in our city, It is important to remember ih.a('rI1~
. . .
issue is not to build towers automatically in our city~ but to satisfy the currenUmd 'pro.i.tct~'tl
ne~ds of the public. Rev.iewing the literature frOln PrimeCo and Bell SOllth M.obility. they'state
that coverage'is presently available. Then why or when do we need towers? -this Ius,t sh~tel11ent
cannot be answered until the providers give us sufficient da~a to make a good i:nfo1'l1Hld d~:;lsion.
The intriguing question begs to be stated...what if the pUblic. wants poor communicatinn sC'rviC~
as a compromise to no visual pollution! What should we do then? .
6', The statement found on Page 5, (c)(3) does not make sel'lS,e (...Routine 1!1ail~ten~lCC \ ind~ldjng
replacement "Yith a new tower...)...). How can routine ~aintenance el1compass replflf.:(:mL:11t'? 'J t
wO,uld seem, ~he tower that is replaced should follow the current guidelines, ' .
Ilfrge the commissioners to reflect on what was read. It. is my hope, that-you agree with rny.
P~d m e the necess~ c:anges to the Ordinance.
~ N ~. IN l;...
P~].11.P. Partyka
MaY9r
'. .