The regulations of this Section are intended to conform with federal laws and administrative rules that authorize and govern facilities needed to operate wireless communication systems, but to reasonably regulate the location and design of such facilities to retain the integrity of neighborhoods and the character,
values and aesthetic quality of the city. Given the dramatic increase in the
of wireless communication facilities requested as a result of the new technology and the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, being Pub. Law No. 104-104 (see § 1(a), 110 Stat. 56), it is the policy of the city that all users should co-locate on Attached Wireless Communication Facilities and Wireless Communication Support Structures in the interest of achieving the purposes and intent of this section. In addition, in recognition of the city’s concern that technological advances
render such visually obtrusive towers unnecessary in the future, there are requirements to remove unused or unnecessary facilities in a timely manner.
a. Definitions. The following definitions apply in the interpretation of this Section:
1. Wireless Communication Facilities. All structures and accessory facilities relating to the of the radio frequency spectrum for the purpose of transmitting or receiving radio signals. This include, but shall not be limited to, radio towers, television towers, telephone devices and exchanges, microwave relay towers, telephone transmission equipment building and commercial mobile radio service facilities. This definition does not include “reception antenna” for an individual lot as otherwise defined and regulated in this zoning ordinance, or governmental facilities subject to or federal or regulations which preempt municipal regulatory authority.
2. Attached Wireless Communication Facilities. Wireless communication facilities affixed to existing structures, such as existing buildings, towers, water tanks, or utility poles.
3. Wireless Communication Support Structures. Structures or modified to support wireless communication antennas. Support structures within this definition include, but shall not be limited to, monopoles, lattice towers, light poles, wood poles and guyed towers, or other structures which appear to be something other than a mere support .
4. Colocation. Location by two (2) or more wireless communication providers of wireless communication facilities on a common , tower, or building, to reduce the overall of structures required to support wireless communication antennas within the city.
b. Zoning Districts and Approval Process for Various Types of Situations
Type/Location of Wireless Communication Facility | Districts Permitted | Approval Procedure |
Type/Location of Wireless Communication Facility | Districts Permitted | Approval Procedure |
1. Attached to existing structures: | ||
- Attached to an existing conforming that will not be materially altered or changed in appearance | All non-single residential districts | Building permit |
- Attached to an existing utility pole within a public that will not be modified or materially alter the pole or impair sight lines or compromise safety | All districts | Building permit, provided a letter of acceptance is provided by the utility company |
- Co-location upon an attached wireless communication facility previously approved for such colocation where the height is not increased by more than 20 feet or 10% | All districts | Building permit |
- Co-location upon an attached wireless communication facility previously approved for such colocation where the height is increased by more than 20 feet or 10% | All districts | approval by the |
2. Located on a municipally owned site: | ||
- Attached to an existing | All districts | Administrative Sketch Plan approval by the |
- Monopole up to 150 feet in height1 | All districts | approval by the |
3. Located on a site owned by another governmental entity, religious institution, public school, or non-residential in a residential zoning district | ||
- Monopole up to 100 feet in height1 | All districts | required in accordance with Article XXI. |
4. New facility not addressed above: | ||
- Monopole up to 120 feet tall1 | B-2, B-3, R-P, I-1, I-2 Districts | Permitted , approval by the |
- Monopole 120—150 feet tall1 | R-P, I-1 and I-2 Districts | Permitted , approval by the |
B-2, B-3 Districts | required in accordance with Article XXI. | |
- Monopole 150—200 feet tall, or lattice tower when it can be demonstrated that a monopole is not feasible | I-1 and I-2 Districts | required in accordance with Article XXI. |
1. Height be increased twenty (20) feet where determined necessary to provide future colocation. | ||
c. Application Requirements. The following information be provided with the sketch plan, as required above.
1. Prior to issuing a building permit, a signed certification by a State of Michigan licensed professional engineer
be provided to the City with regard to the manner in which the proposed
will fall (i.e. “all zone”), and that the
area provided shall accommodate the
should it fall or break.
2. A description of
, in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney, to be posted at the time of receiving a building permit for the facility to ensure removal of the facility when it has been abandoned or is no longer needed, as provided in paragraph e below.
In this regard, the security
, at the election of the city attorney, be in the form of: (1) cash; (2) security bond; (3) letter of credit; or, (4) an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney and recordable at the
of the Register of Deeds, establishing a promise of the applicant and
of the
to remove the facility in a timely manner as required under this section of the ordinance, with the further provision that the applicant and
shall be responsible for the payment of any costs or attorneys fees incurred by the city in securing removal.
3. A map that illustrates existing and known proposed wireless communication facilities within the city and township, which are relevant in terms of potential co-location or to demonstrate the need for the proposed facility. If and to the extent the information in question is on file with the city, the applicant
be required only to update as needed. Any such information which is trade secret and/or other confidential commercial information which, if released would result in commercial disadvantage to the applicant,
be submitted with a request for confidentiality in connection with the
of governmental policy, M.C.L.A. § 15.243(l)(f). This ordinance shall serve as the promise to maintain confidentiality to the extent permitted by
. The request for confidentiality must be prominently stated in order to bring it to the attention of the community.
4. For all new facilities, in recognition of the city’s policy to promote co-location, a written agreement in a format approved by the City Attorney, transferable to all assessors and assigns, that the operator
make space available on the facility for co-location.
5. The name, address and phone number of the
to contact for engineering, maintenance and other notice purposes. This information
be continuously updated during all times the facility is on the
.
d. Design Standards Applicable to All Facilities. In addition to the Criteria of Site Plan Review listed in Section 2405, all wireless communication facilities be constructed and maintained in accordance with the following standards:
1. Facilities
be located and designed to be harmonious with the surrounding areas. The City encourages unique design of the
to either diminish the visual impact or to create an architectural feature that will contribute to or enhance community character.
2. A permit for the construction and
of a new wireless communication facility shall not be granted until the applicant demonstrates a feasible co-location is not available for the coverage area and capacity needs.
3. All new and modified wireless communication facilities
be designed and constructed to accommodate co-location.
4.
be provided to
the
base, accessory buildings and enclosure from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way.
5. Elevations of the accessory buildings
be provided. All accessory buildings shall be constructed of brick, provided the City
waive this requirement a building located in an I-1 or I-2 District that is not visible from a public
or nonindustrial zoning district.
6. Fencing
be provided for protection of the support
and security from children and other persons who
otherwise access facilities.
7. Any nonconforming situations on the site, such as
, signs, inadequate
, unpaved parking, lack of a
, improper lighting or similar conditions
be brought into conformance prior to the erection of the wireless communication facility. If existing buildings or structures are not in conformance with the current zoning standards, improvements shall be made to decrease the nonconformity or additional
shall be provided to reduce the impact of the nonconformity and the wireless facility.
8. The operator
comply with applicable federal and
standards relative to the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions.
9. The applicant
demonstrate that the requested height of the new or modified support
and antenna shall be the minimum height be necessary for reasonable communication by the applicant, including additional height to accommodate future co-location where appropriate.
10. Minimum required setbacks for new facility or support
.
(a) From any residential
- the height of the
, provided the engineering information required in c, 1 is provided. The
or body with authority to approve the facility
decrease this
to that provided in (c) below upon a finding that no residential
exists or is expected on the adjacent site.
(b) From any existing or proposed rights-of-way or other publicly traveled roads or non-motorized improved pathways - half the height of the
, plus ten (10) feet, provided the engineering information required in c, 1 is provided; otherwise the
be the height of the facility.
(c) From non-residential
- one half the height of the
, provided the engineering information required in c, 1 above demonstrates such
is adequate.
11. Accessory buildings
be a maximum of fourteen (14) feet high and shall be
in accordance with the requirements for principal buildings in that zoning
.
12. There
be unobstructed access to the support
, for operation, maintenance, repair and inspection purposes, which
be provided through or over an
. This access shall have a width and location determined by such factors as: the location of adjacent thoroughfares and traffic and circulation within the site; utilities needed to service the tower and any attendant facilities; the location of buildings and parking facilities; proximity to residential districts and minimizing disturbance to the natural landscape; and the type of equipment which will need to access the site.
13. Where an attached wireless communication facility is proposed on the roof of a building if the equipment enclosure is proposed as a roof appliance or penthouse on the building, it
be designed, constructed and maintained to be architecturally compatible with the
. The equipment enclosure
be located within the
or may be an
.
14. The support system
be constructed in accordance with all applicable building codes and shall include the submission of a soils report from a geotechnical engineer, licensed in the State of Michigan. This soils report shall include soil borings and statements confirming the suitability of soil conditions for the proposed
.
15. The requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communication Commission, and Michigan Aeronautics Commission
be noted. Furthermore, the applicant shall provide the City with evidence of compliance with the requirements of Bishop International Airport. If approval or authorization is needed from the Joint Airport Zoning Board or another airport authority, such approval or authorization shall be provided to the City in writing prior to consideration of the application submittal.
16. A maintenance plan, and any applicable maintenance agreement,
be presented and approved as part of the
for the proposed facility. Such plan
be designed to ensure the long term, continuous maintenance to a reasonably prudent standard.
17. Towers
be painted a neutral color so as to reduce visual obtrusiveness or be constructed of galvanized steel.
18. Towers shall not be lit, unless required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other applicable authority. If lighting is required, the lighting alternatives and design chosen must cause the least disturbance to the surrounding views.
19. No signs
be allowed on an antenna or tower.
e. Removal. As a condition of every approval of a wireless communication facility, adequate provision be made for removal of the facility by users and owners upon the occurrence of one or more of the following events:
1. When the facility has not been used for one hundred eighty (180) days or more. For purposes of this section, the removal of antennas or other equipment from the facility, or the cessation of operations (transmission and/or reception of radio signals)
be considered as the beginning of a period of nonuse.
2. The situations in which removal of a facility is required, as set forth in paragraph (1) above,
be applied and limited to portions of a facility.
3. Upon the occurrence of one or more of the events requiring removal, specified in paragraph (1) above, the
or persons who had used the facility
immediately apply or secure the application for any required demolition or removal permits, and immediately proceed with and complete the demolition/removal, restoring the
to an acceptable condition as reasonably determined by the
.
4. If the required removal of a facility or a portion thereof has not been lawfully completed within sixty (60) days of the applicable deadline, and after at least thirty (30) days written notice, the City
remove or secure the removal of the facility or required portions thereof, with its actual cost and reasonable administrative charge to be drawn or collected and/or enforced from or under the security posted at the time application was made for establishing the facility.
f. Nonconforming facilities and penalties for not permitting collocation. If a party who owns or otherwise controls a wireless communication facility fail or refuse to alter a to accommodate a proposed and otherwise feasible co-location, such facility shall thereupon and thereafter be deemed to be a nonconforming and , and shall not be altered, expanded or extended in any respect. In addition, if a party refuses to allow co-location in accordance with the intent of this Section, and this action results in construction of a new tower, the city refuse to approve a new wireless communication support from that party for a period of up to five (5) years. Such a party seek and obtain a from the Zoning if and to the limited extent the applicant demonstrates entitlement to relief which, in this context, shall mean a demonstration that enforcement of the five (5) year prohibition would unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent wireless communication services, or that such enforcement would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless communication services.
g. Variances. The Zoning consider a from the standards of this Section, based upon a finding that one or more of the following factors exist:
1. Location. The applicant has demonstrated that a location within a in accordance with the standards of this Section can not reasonably meet the coverage or capacity needs of the applicant.
2. No Co-location. The applicant has demonstrated that a feasible co-location is not available for the coverage area and capacity needs because existing structures can not support the facility, that co-location would result in unreasonable interference, or that reasonable financial terms are not available for co-location.
3. Tower Setback. The applicant has provided engineering information documenting that the tower is self-collapsing and that the area provided accommodate the should it fall or break and provide a reasonable buffer in the event the fails.
4. Height. The height requested is due to signal interference due to topography, tall buildings, masses of trees, or other obstructions, or would reduce the of towers to the benefit of the City.
5. Mitigation. The applicant has proposed means to mitigate any negative impacts through provision for future co-location, if found to be appropriate by the City, and special design of the facility and site.
6. Design. The wireless communication and accessory facilities be designed to be compatible with the existing character of the proposed site, neighborhood and general area such as a steeple, bell tower, or similar form.
(Amended Ordinance 1407-01, passed 8-13-2014)