Tuesday, March 18, 1997 | 11:59 a.m.
If Southern Nevada could choose a bird that embodied its booming prosperity, the joke goes, it would be the crane -- as in construction crane.
Likewise, if it could choose a tree symbolizing the people who have moved here to take advantage of that prosperity, it would probably be the cellular phone transmission tower.
Small wonder. The proliferation of transmission towers -- and the complaints by people who don't want them in their back yards -- is fueled by a demand for cell phones unlike any other American city.
Close to 300,000 Southern Nevadans chat on their cell phones, more per capita than anywhere in the country. And the more cell phone users, the more towers are needed to accommodate the demand for clean, clear reception.
That need has created a headache county commissioners deal with routinely as the companies seeking permission to build new towers face off with the homeowners who don't want to look at the towers.
"The funny thing about it is everyone is screaming about cell phones and wanting them to work," said Katherine Engle, a site location specialist for AT&T Wireless, "but they don't want to look at poles."
But homeowners seem to have the commissioners' support when it comes to locating transmission towers in residential areas.
"I am adamantly opposed to it," said Commissioner Erin Kenny, whose own phone bills run higher than any of her colleagues and are the fourth highest of Clark County's accounts with 360 Communications.
Before any more towers are approved, Commissioners Myrna Williams and Lorraine Hunt have asked the district attorney's office to find out what legal options they have, and whether they can regulate the construction of cell towers through existing zoning codes.
"This is something we need to examine very carefully," Williams said.
Deputy District Attorney Cliff Jeffers said he hopes to have an opinion ready by Wednesday, when the board is scheduled to hear two requests for 100-foot tall cell phone towers, one of which was held from two weeks ago at the request of Williams and Hunt. They wanted to see if the vendors could co-locate their antennas on existing towers.
The 1996 Telecommunications Act and case law suggest that towers are subject to local zoning laws as long as the laws are not discriminatory against cell towers, Jeffers said.
"What does that mean?" Jeffers said, noting the difficulty of interpreting the act. "If you have two poles on a site, do you have to provide for poles for whoever wants them?"
Greg Borgel, a zoning consultant representing the applicant, said he took the case because he supports co-location as a way to solve the zoning headaches. A company needs a grid of 65 transmitters to provide "adequate service," Borgel said. With six companies competing for cell service, a minimum of 390 locations are needed unless they co-locate, Borgel said.
That number of towers already in place could already be higher, since AT&T Wireless and 360 Communications already have at least 100 locations apiece.
"We have to add sites as capacity requires," Engle said. "It's real hard for us to keep up with growth, the valley is growing so fast."
Engle said locating sites is getting tougher because of the zoning issues. As a result, the company is camouflaging their locations or placing them on existing structures and lowering them from an average of 75 feet to 45 feet to escape frequency interference.
The company also steers clear of residential zoning when possible, Engle said, but the engineering requirements to complete a grid don't always allow that.
"It's a challenge," Engle said, noting the company has even put antennas in baseball field lights. "It's going to become more difficult if we can't get our poles where we need them."
With the proliferation of applications to build towers, Kenny said, the county may need to develop a policy or ordinance regulating where they can go up so applicants know ahead of time that "it's going to be denied because it interferes with residential lifestyles."
The time has come, Kenny said, to consider a cellular tower overlay, similar to the county's billboard overlay, "to demonstrate where we prefer to see cellular towers."
Williams said that might be a reasonable approach, if federal law will allow it.
"That's the problem," Wil-liams said. "We're just not certain of what we can do."
An overlay would be impractical because of the specific engineering needs of the cellular transmitter locations, 360 Communications General Manager Kraig Pyer said.
"It's a great suggestion but the chances of their overlay coinciding with the needs of a cell site are very slim," Pyer said.
Besides, the telecommunications act "actually calls for a lot freer -- less intervention by local and county-type entities," he said.
"It really says that these guys can put towers up where they want, unless it's zoning restricted," Pyer said. "It further says counties can't change zoning laws to prohibit the construction of cell towers or cell tower growth."
Pyer said his company is open to letting the new companies co-locate on 360's towers, but there are technical problems that sometimes prohibit it.
"We've co-located with some of these guys already," Pyer said. "Many times, however, the tower won't support another group of antennas or equipment."
archive
