The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997 08 11 Regular Item H COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM H REGULAR X CONSENT INFORMATIONAL August 11.1997 Meeting MGR. R~T Authorization PURPOSE: City Manager requesting tbe City Commission to address tbe Mayor's veto of July 21, 1997 regarding 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. CONSIDERATIONS: The Commission passed the third reading of the Telecommunications Towers Ordinance # 645 at its July 14, 1997 Commission Meeting. The Mayor has chosen to veto the Telecommunication Tower Ordinance. On July 28, 19978 the City Commission voted to table action on the items due to a ruling of the City Attorney that four of the five Commissioners required to be present to vote. 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 City Attorney's Letter of July 21, 1997 COMMISSION ACTION: Page 1 IZlTI24/37 12J3; ZS P. 1Zl1ZlJ. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA -.---...-.------...--.--.........-...--- 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708.Z799 Telephone (407) 327.1800 OI<'FICE OF TIm MA VOR July2l,1997 By notice of this letler which is within 10 days, according t.o City Charler, I am vetoing Ordinance 645 ( the "te.lecommunications towers" ordinance), which was passed by t.he J City Commission 011 July 14, 1997. 1 will provide a written rcspome concerning my vt::!.n at ih~ nexl regular commissi<.m meeting. ~ . 1 1 Mayor, City of Winter Springs ~ (j /---- . -S'~\ / . \ ..lo. .':\=;..;:- ;:. - -" ' \ ....~\~ }-' . '~.--'-- \ _I ..." Ui, ~ iVl/ ' \I",~ '. .' / .'. Iq.;Q....., / ~(CRiO~ / CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799 Telephone (407) 327-'800 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 - <,J '- j'{ d .; S : 3 0 !. C - !.. 3 - L IJ H\f'olTE'J? (&~.~. /. "~.>- -., \\~ I ;r- '~f""'A t lU\ ~~)~ \,' \I"',,"-~~". i)' \ ' . ~19S~ '~ :.'\~~. ~R~ .. '" ....... . I" "'" .... ...... _" ~ CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA '1126 EAST STATE ROAD ~4 WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708.2799 Telephone (401) '327-1800 . , First of all, I regret that I can not be present to read this statement. But business, nos tak~l1 m~ om of the country. I have asked Deputy Mayor, David McLeod,~o read the f~llowing... Dear City Commissioners, . ' This explai,ns my reasons for vetoing Ordinance 645 which deals with telecol!~mU1'iicatit'ms .towers. The issues that need to be addressed as it pertains to cornrmU'lications towers ar,~: 1. They should have minimal impact on our visual environmental quality of life. 2. They should :provide the communications needs for our citizens. 3. We s,hould make informed deCisions based on good, facrual, and credible data. We need to answer all tl1Iee statements pos{tively to :pass a sound ordinance. All other considerations are secondary. The representatives of the communications industry have done a poor Job of giving.this.;,cil:yis staff and this commission good and complete data. Without this data, an informed ~ecjsion cannot be made. I submit to the commission that the industry is not being. a good business 'cirizert since it has not given us the data. In fact, they have implied that aIlj'1:hing that ",;e do, short of what they would like, would force a legal suit. That is extremely unfair and continue,,s to be the crux of the problem in this entire towers issue. I have conferred with s~verar . commwrication towers experts that deal with issues similar to what we have before .us, Tn 'reviewing what we have requested from 'the industry, they have said it is proper and reasonable t<? demand and get the information. These experts did state that the towers placement iss'L(~ is , comp~icated due to factors of band width, geography, number of users, etc. .Sut that only reinforces our need to get the information. It's very presumptuous of them and irritating to me that the information is not being given because it may be so complicated that we cannot figure i.. 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 confident th~ . <:omrnission can assimilate the data properly and ultimately make a decision b~st foi' th~ city's residents. Without th~ data, we cannot iI:l good ~onscience m'ake an informe~ decision and, , therefor~, should not be forced to do so. Simply stated, no one has proven to me that ~e need even one tower in the city, let alone five towers. I urge the city commission to demand c,ompiete data from the telecommunication companies before, enacting.a towers ordiriance. , , Given the above background, there are some specific issues that I have concerns \li1th: , ., , 1. The distance between towers and residential stru~es be a minimum of 12-5% ,of t11e tower , heigh~ or 225 feet is grossly insufficient. The simple question to askyc,urselfis,.,Do Y'\)t\ want a tower 70 yards away from your house? I don't. Itls not fair to citizens.' Orlando /Oronge Counry requires 3-5x height of the tower. I would propose we do it similar to that.' Three hW1dred yards makes it more palatable. Furthermore, our planned ordinac~ read$...We are to notify people with public notices that are located within 3x the tower height area (pg. 8, (f)(S). This implies th<'lt th~ minimum currently set is insufficient. 2 "(1 I !we-,- . t-,n I ~ .-,-, .2. \Ve cannot determine" based on current data, the correct nwnber of to".....ers nced~d in lHU' ,c.tt)' ,i either short term or long tenn, W:e have requested data from the providers lu ~how project(;)d usage. We keep getting answers that it depends on service, on the geography, ~tc. . Wt:11 it' i~ my belief, that we should get a range of data to show all significant posslhilitics for the variOWi equipment 011 our'terrain. I'm sure,the facts wi1llead us to the proper conclLLSion. rfwc dpn't'ger 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 bui!doLlt before new locations are a~thorized". Any location that meets our stated goal of,mil1,imal. intrusion should be considered, regardless of property owners~ip. Our goal should nor be' LO. make r~venues for the city but to insure that our residents' quality afenvil'onmcnr be prntt~~;T(;;d :.!S much as possible. For the relatively insignificant revenues per household versus pJ'o,l~ctjn:.; the visuaLenvironment, I believe, the overwhelming support would be, to protect t.h~ envirollrnenl ,. ror $5-10 more a year in taxes. .' 4. We should use stealth locations as much as possible, Locations such as church' stc~ple", utility towers. tall light poles (all are being done in other parts of the country) should he ,', investigated, by potentiat pz:oviders before towers are requested. C'sing steaIth loca.tions r~lC1Y miillmiie or eHn1inate the need for towers. . 5" The number of tower~/tower locations are too 'many. As stated ahov~ 'better' dat~t I s l1;:.~U:cd to' make this decision properly, Furthermore, authorized tower locatiollS adjacent Lo our ci'ty':;;h'ouid be considered in determining our needs. Those locations may be sufficicllt for the I1ce;;.cls ('J the public witho~t putting additional visual pollution in our city. It is important to remember ,LIlac' rht: issue is not to build towers automatically in our city, but to satisfy the current. !:Uld ,pro.i.t:ct~'-d ne~s of the public. Rev:iewing the literature frOln PrimeCo and Bell South J\llobilhy. thc)"stnte that coverage 'is presently available. Then why or when do we need towers? This Ius,t statement cannot be answered until the providers give us sufficient data to make a good ~nfonned d~:.:ision. The intriguing question begs to be stated...what if the pUblic-wants poor ~ommunicatinn s~rviC~ as a compromise to 110 v.isual pollution! What should we do then? " 6. The statement found on Page 5, (c)(3) does not make sense (...Routine I!Hlintel1U1~C~ (inCllj(Jilll:; replacement ~th a new tower.,,).,,). How can routine maintenance encompass replncctl1\,;rif? Je wO,uld seem, ~e tower that is replaced should follow the current guide]ine~, ' . 1 urge the commissioners to reflect on what was read. It. is my hope, that you agree vvith my, P>d.i t. and m e the necess~ changes to the Ordinance. ' ... Ii ) .: ~..J('; ~ P~~lP. Partyka MaY9r JUL 30 ' 97 05: 28PM KRUppaiBRCHER & RSSC P.2/3 ~ LAW OFFICES FRANK KRUPPENBACHER A Professional Association Frank Kruppenbacher" P.O. Box 3471 Orlando, Florida 32802-3471 105 E. Robinson Street, Suite 201 Orlando, Florida 32801.1622 Telephone (407) 246-0200 Facsimile (407) 426-7767 · Also Admitted in Colorado July 29) 1997 VIA FACSIMILE Mayor and City Commissioners City of Winter Springs 1126 East S.R. 434 Winter Sptings, FL 32708 Re: Veto - Telecommunications Ordinance Dear Mayor and City Commissioners: The City Commission has requested that I provide my opinion in writing regarding the above referenced matter. 1. Question One - What vote is required by the City Commission to pass the telecommunications ordinance after the Mayor's veto? Answer One ~ Section 4.05 of the City Charter specifically states, "It shall require four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Commission to pass the ordinance after the Mayor's veto. II As City Attorney, it is my opinion that the language as written requires four members of the City Commission to affirmatively vote to pass the telecommunications ordinance after the Mayor's veto. Thereafter, the ordinance would be effective in accordance with law. 2. OlJestion Two - May the Mayor veto a vote of the City Commission to override his veto of an ordinance? Answer Two - No. 3. Ouestion Three - May the City Commission table its vote on a veto because there are not four commissioners eligible to vote at the meeting where the Mayor returns the ordinance with his message per the City's Charter, Section 4.05? Answer Three - Yes. The City Charter contemplates the authority of the Mayor to veto and the authority of the City Commission to pass the ordinance over the veto. An interpretation of the Charter should be done so as to effectuate the spirit and intent of the Charter language. As FROM 407-426-7767 07-30-97 06:36 PM P02 JUL .30 '97 06:28PM KRUPPENBACHER & ASSC P.3/3 t. Mayor and City Commissioners July 29, 1997 Page Two such, an interpretation of the language that would preclude the ability of the City Commission to have four members of the City Commission vote on the override because of the absence of the Mayor and . a City Commissioner (the acting Mayor can only vote in the event of a tie) from the City Commission meeting, frustrates the spirit and intent of the Charter. Therefore, it is my opinion, the City Commission did not waive its right to vote on the veto issue by tabling the matter to the nex.t regularly scheduled meeting. Should you have any further questions, please contact me. Sincere%, / /-'-' 1/ /~~C .)Ju.N2<~ Frank C. Krup{e11'bact4f Signed in Mr. Kruppenbncher's absence to avoid delay FCK:lrnc FROM 407-426-7767 07-30-97 06: 36 PM P03