Resolution 2005-069
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-~
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
OPI'OSING ENACTMENT INTO LAW SPECIFIC I'ROVISIONS
IN SECTION THREE IN PROPOSED FLORIDA SI~NATE BILL
0620 RELATING TO UNWARRANTED AND UNJUSTIFIED
ELIMINATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF
WmELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES AND SITES
WHEREAS, Collier County's objections to proposed Senate Bill 0620 are
limited to Section 3 in Senate Bill 0620; and
WHEREAS, Section 3 in proposed Senate Bill 0620 grants significant
exemptions to wireless communications facilities from approval review of Florida
counties, municipalities, and all other local governments (as defined in the Bill); and
WHEREAS. the Bill's exemptions from local govel11ment approval review arc
based upon alleged necessity to facilitate 911 service and/or E911 service; and
WHEREAS, the Bill's proposed exemptions from local government review are
not expressly limited only to wireless communications facilities (and sites) that facilitate
911 service and/or E911 service (through reliable wireless systems); therefore, first and
foremost, the Bill must be amended to clearly state that all exemptions from local
govel11ment review shall apply only to a provider's wireless communications facilities
and sites that facilitate 911 service and/or E911 service; and
WHEREAS, Section 3 in this Bill adds a new definition of "Administrative
Review" (into Sec. 365.172) which level of review prohihits each Florida local
government from having any hearing and from even reviewing any public input regarding
placement of, or modifications to, wireless communications facilities (including towers)
and sites; and
WHEREAS, Section 3 in this Bill adds a new definition of "Building-permit
review" (into Sec. 365.(72), which level of review affirmatively prohibits each Florida
local govel11ment from considering compliance with land development regulations,
defined as "... any ordinance enacted by a local govel11ing body for the regulation of any
aspect of development, including an ordinance goveming zoning, subdivision,
landscaping, tree protection, or signs, or any other ordinance concel11ing any aspect of the
development of land. The term does not include bui Iding-construction standards adopted
under and in compliance with chapter 553."; and
WHEREAS, Section 3 in this Bill is proposed to be amended to specify that
collocation alllong wireless providers is encouraged by the state, and that "collocations"
(not expressly limited only to collocation of a wireless provider's facilities), provided
such collocated facilities will not exceed the height of any other structure or appurtenance
then at the supporting structure, and which are or a design and configuration consistent
with all applicable restrictions or conditions applied to the first antenna, shall not be
subject to land development regulations and shall be subject only to building-permit
review. Also, collocations are not subject to restrictions, conditions, permits, or
agreements imposed by a local government, acting in its regulatory capacity, which are
inconsistent with Section 365.172, F.S. Section 3 in this Bill should clearly exempt only
collocated facilities/sites that facilitate 911 and/or E911 service; and no wireless
communications facilities or site should be exempted from a local government's
landscaping requirements, sign ordinance, subdivision regulations, PUDs, or the local
govel11ment's imposed collocation agreement provisions that are imposed upon
applicant's applying for other essential service communications facilities or sites; and
WHEREAS, Section 3 in this Bill (correctly limited only to "wireless
providers"), specifies that local government's regulatory authority over placement of a
wireless provider's facilities (including towers) is to be limited to evaluating only
relevant land use and zoning issues, and the local govel11ment is no longer allowed to
question the wireless provider's alleged business need for its selected site; therefore if the
local government's zoning allows the applied-for facilities (including towers) at the
applicant's selected site, the local government must allow the applied-for facilities to be
placed on such site even if those applied-for facilities could functionally be placed on a
more appropriate site with regard to adjacent properties. This proposed elimination of
this currently existing local government authority is unjustified and unwarranted; and
WHEREAS, Section 3 in this Bill provides that Florida's local governments can
no longer mandate that wireless communications facilities be placed, constructed and/or
rnodified in accordance with accepted trade construction standards, including EIAfTIA
standards. Collier County's Communications Tower Ordinance (LDC) applies EIAfTIA
standards to wireless communications facilities. There is no valid reason why any Florida
local government should be prohibited from retaining its existing authority to mandate
that wireless communications facilities comply with such trade construction standards.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. The Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida opposes
enactment into law of proposed Florida Senate Bill 0620 because the proposed
amendments specified above in the WHEREAS clauses do not even remotely
approach a proper balancing of the needs to facilitate 911 and/or E911
services against the public interests of local governments being able to
regulate land use and communications facilities, including interests of the
adjacent and nearby landowners who may be negatively affected by such land
uses and facilities.
2. The Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, requests that
its Local Legislative Delegation advocate that the proposed Bill not be enacted
into law unless and until the County's concerns, as expressed herein, are cured
by amendments to proposed Senate Bill 0620, and other similar legislation, if
any.
THIS RESOLUTIO~ ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote in
favor of adoption this .:1 S 1yday of /(./1/1 <1/1. 'L , 2005.
d
.H
ATTEST"-"I~ ''I3E1.'';;:..
"'.,,{]o! ""r(} ,
4',\" .....',..J .
DWIGwrE.:BR(:J~..cLERK
" t;,. .... , ,\\~,'~\ c!\,~
.~ c-- ' '\.1....'.', '.\." '''~ ~..,'
.' . "'.' l'toi .'t';' ~i'~,:1t.. /7
By" " . ",..."".
. .... '/. .,', "'C,:
; "'[)eputvClil.l .'':',)',.
. <';". 'iitH~.~>:,~;>:',/'I"
Attest y,'t ......,,~..'...,'.':,....""
..., '" 0...","-' .,:.1 :':"<1' .'
sf""4twre ool'jr:~'lj'.,Jl S '"
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By: ~W. (~
FRED W. COYLE, CHAI AN
Item #
110M
(-;"5'05
Thomas C. Palmer,
Assistant County Attorney
Agenda
Date
1- l.boS
,
'I