(A) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide guidelines to applicants and the reviewing authority regarding the preferred locations and configurations for wireless telecommunication facilities in the town, provided that nothing in this section shall be construed to permit a wireless telecommunication facility in any location or configuration that is otherwise prohibited by this chapter.
(B) Review of location and configuration. The reviewing authority shall consider the extent to which a proposed wireless telecommunication facility complies with these preferences and whether there are feasible alternative locations or configurations to the proposed facility that are more preferred under this section.
(C) Order of preference – configurations. The order of preference for the configuration for wireless telecommunication facilities from most preferred to least preferred is:
(1) Collocation with existing facilities outside the public rights-of-way;
(2) Roof-mounted;
(3) Building-mounted;
(4) Mounted on an existing pole or utility pole;
(5) Mounted on a new pole or utility pole that will replace an existing pole or utility pole; and
(6) Mounted on a new telecommunication tower or pole.
(D) Order of preference – location. The order of preference for the location of wireless telecommunications facilities from most preferred to least preferred is:
(1) In the CH zoning district;
(2) In the CS zoning district;
(3) In the CC zoning district;
(4) In the CL zoning district;
(5) In the PD zoning district; and
(6) In the public right-of-way with the closest adjacent district being a commercial district.
(E) Applications for new wireless communications facilities shall only be for placement a minimum of 50 feet from all residences and a minimum 300 feet from child day care centers, schools, playgrounds, parks, ballfields, and medical facilities unless the applications include information sufficient to demonstrate:
(1) The location and type of preferred sites which exist within the proposed or technically feasible coverage area is mapped;
(2) The preferred location site was not available as shown by the good faith efforts and measures taken by the carrier to secure the preferred location sites;
(3) Specific reasons why such efforts and measures were unsuccessful;
(4) Specific reasons why the location of the proposed facility site is essential to meet the service demands of the carrier; and
(5) Through reports required pursuant to § 19.04.050 demonstrating compliance with current federal health standards.
(F) Wireless communications facilities shall be attached or sited adjacent to existing structures unless the carrier demonstrates to the satisfaction of the town that no other technically feasible site exists or that construction of a freestanding facility on or at a distant location from an existing structure will mitigate adverse effects related to land use compatibility, visual resources, public safety and other environmental factors addressed by CEQA. Appropriate types of existing structures may include, but not be limited to: buildings, water tanks and some telephone/utility poles.
(G) Monopoles for wireless communications facilities should not be located in residential or open space areas unless technical evidence demonstrates to the satisfaction of the town that no other alternative facility site or type of antenna support structure is feasible and/or if the use of a monopole for the proposed facility by itself or in combination with other existing, approved and proposed facilities will avoid or mitigate adverse effects related to land use compatibility, visual resources and public safety.
(H) Accessory equipment. In order of preference from most preferred to least preferred, accessory equipment for wireless telecommunication facilities and wireless telecommunications collocation facilities (excluding antennas and electric meters) shall be located underground where possible, within a building or structure, on a screened roof top area or structure, or in a rear yard if not readily visible from surrounding properties and the roadway, unless the reviewing authority finds that another location is preferable under the circumstances of the application. The applicant shall bear the burden of demonstrating that accessory equipment cannot be placed in the most preferred location.
(I) Collocation and shared-location of wireless telecommunications facilities should be required when it is feasible and mitigates adverse effects related to land use compatibility, visual resources, public safety and other environmental factors addressed by CEQA. Collocation and shared-location sites should not be required when it creates or significantly increases such adverse effects and/or technical evidence demonstrates to the satisfaction of the town that it is not feasible due to service impairment or operational failures. To ensure adequate and complete consideration of collocation and shared-location siting of proposed wireless communications facilities, the carrier may be required to submit to the town a graphic and written analysis which identifies all technically feasible sites within the coverage area that would accommodate the proposed service. The analysis shall include:
(1) Enough information to provide adequate consideration of technically feasible alternative sites and/or facility designs that would avoid or minimize adverse effects related to land use compatibility, visual resources, public safety and other environmental factors addressed by CEQA;
(2) In writing, the specific factors for selection of the proposed facility site over alternative sites;
(3) Facilities which are not proposed to be sited on a collocation or shared-location site shall provide information substantiating the unfeasibility of the sites; and
(4) The town may require independent peer review of the analysis prior to making a decision on the permit applications. The analysis should, to the extent practical, be incorporated with the coverage area map.
(J) The town should, to the extent practicable and legal, discourage leases which convey exclusive (i.e., single user) rights for new wireless communications facilities to the extent that the leases may preclude development of a suitable collocation facilities site.
(K) The design of collocation sites should promote shared use among different carriers. To the extent feasible, antenna support and equipment structures should be designed to consolidate future planned facilities to eliminate or minimize the visual clutter resulting from multiple telecommunications structures. Where appropriate, as demonstrated by the carrier and determined by the town, multiple antenna support structures may be approved (shared-location) rather than a single larger/higher structure. Facilities should make available unutilized space for collocation of other antennas and equipment, including space for competing service carriers.
(Ord. 833, passed 8-7-2019)