(a) Jurisdiction Study of Potential Public Sites. In order to encourage the location of a wireless telecommunication facility on publicly-owned property, the Planning Board shall undertake an identification of publicly-owned properties that the Board determines are suitable for such use. The Zoning Administrator shall regularly update such identification and make the results of such available to the public.
(b) Exemption from Proof of Co-Location Availability. Persons locating a wireless telecommunication facility upon a publicly-owned property identified in the study mentioned in Section 1127.03(a): Jurisdiction Study of Potential Public Sites, above shall be exempted from the requirements herein regarding presentation of proof that co-location is not available. However, persons locating a wireless telecommunication facility on publicly-owned property shall continue to be subject to the requirements contained in Section 1127.03(d): Technically Suitable Space, below.
(c) Co-Location Design Required. No new tower shall be constructed in the City of Fairborn unless such tower is capable of accommodating at least one additional wireless telecommunication facility owned by another entity if less than 100 feet in height and at least two additional facilities if over 100 feet in height. Approval of any new tower shall be granted only subject to the tower owner agreeing to allow such future co-locations to occur if requested. Lease holds or lots shall be of sufficient size to accommodate all potential wireless telecommunication facilities proposed at the site.
(d) Technically Suitable Space. Authorization for a tower shall be issued only if there is not technically suitable space reasonably available on an existing tower or structure within the geographic area to be served.
(e) Application Requirements. With the permit application, the applicant shall list the location of every tower, building, or structure within approximately one mile that could support the proposed antenna. The applicant must demonstrate that a technically suitable location is not reasonably available on an existing tower, antenna support structure, building, or structure within such area. If another communication tower owned by another party within such area is technically suitable, applicant must show that an offer was made to the owner of such tower to co-locate an antenna on a tower owned by the applicant on reciprocal terms within the applicant's entire service area, and the offer was not accepted. If such co-location offer has not been attempted by the applicant, then such other tower is presumed to be reasonably available.
(Ord. 34-17. Effective 12-7-17.)