(A) Applications that are NOT subject to use permit requirements:
(1) Utility poles.
(a) A new, replacement or modified utility pole for SWF collocations installed in the ROW is NOT subject to zoning review or approval if it does not exceed the greater of either:
1. Ten feet above the tallest existing utility pole (excluding utility poles supporting only wireless facilities), that is located within 500 feet of the proposed site for the new, replacement or modified pole if that existing pole was in place prior to August 9, 2017, but the new pole cannot be more than 50 feet above ground level; or
2. Forty feet above ground level. The existing utility pole that is used as the basis for the new, replacement or modified utility pole must be in the same ROW and jurisdictional boundary of the town. If there is no existing verticality, the new, replacement or modified utility pole may not exceed 40 feet above ground level.
(b) Applications are required to be approved unless the utility pole does not comply with:
1. Applicable codes;
2. Code provisions or regulations that concern public safety;
3. Objective design standards; reasonable stealth and concealment requirements;
4. Reasonable spacing requirements concerning the location of new utility poles in the ROW.
(2) Small wireless facility (SWF) collocations of new small wireless facilities.
(a) SWF collocations of new small wireless facilities are NOT subject to zoning review and approval if they do not exceed ten feet above the utility pole or wireless support structure (defined as including a monopole if there was an existing one in the ROW) and do not exceed 50 feet above ground level. Applications for a permit to collocate SWFs to utility poles in the ROW, in any zoning district, are required to be approved unless the application does not meet:
1. Applicable codes;
2. Code provisions or regulations that concern public safety;
3. Objective design standards for decorative utility poles;
4. Reasonable stealth and concealment requirements; or
5. Reasonable spacing requirements concerning the location of ground-mounted equipment.
(b) Consolidated applications for the collocation of up to 25 SWFs may be submitted by an applicant only if all SWFs included are substantially the same type and involve substantially the same type of structure. SWF collocations may be removed from the application and considered separately if incomplete information was provided, the SWF does not qualify for consolidated treatment or the SWF is subject to a denial. If the town denies an application for not meeting one or more of the requirements listed above, documentation must be submitted to the applicant on or before the date of denial that includes the specific code provisions, regulations or requirements on which the denial was based. The applicant may resubmit the application to cure the deficiencies that the denial was based on within 30 days after denial. The town must approve or deny the resubmitted application within 30 days of receipt with no additional fee charged to the applicant. The review of the resubmitted application is limited to the deficiencies that were cited for the basis or denial. If the town takes no action on the application within the specified time frame, the application is deemed approved.
(B) Applications subject to zoning review.
(1) The modification of existing or the installation of new monopoles, the installation or collocation of wireless facilities, and the installation of utility poles and SWFs that exceed the heights that are exempt from zoning review are subject to all of the zoning codes, regulations and regulatory processes governing the rights-of-way.
(2) Applications for collocating to town utility poles are to be processed in the same manner as applications to collocate to utility poles.
(3) An application must include an attestation that the small wireless facilities will be collocated on the utility pole or wireless support structure and that the small wireless facilities will be operational for use by a wireless services provider to provide service within one year after the permit issuance date.
(4) The town may deny an application only if there is a reasonable basis for the denial and the denial is not discriminatory against the applicant with respect to the placement of the facilities of other wireless providers. If an application is denied, the town must notify the applicant in writing and provide substantial supporting evidence for the reason for denial.
(5) The town requires the applicant to obtain necessary ROW permits to collocate a small wireless facility in the ROW. An applicant seeking to collocate multiple small wireless facilities within the town may file a consolidated application for the collocation of up to 25 small wireless facilities if the collocations each involve substantially the same type of small wireless facilities and substantially the same type of structure.
(6) An application shall be approved unless the application does not meet the applicable codes, local code provisions or regulations that concern public safety, objective design standards for decorative utility poles or reasonable stealth and concealment requirements or public safety and reasonable spacing requirements concerning the location of ground-mounted equipment in a right-of-way. If it is determined that applicable codes or local code provisions or regulations require that the utility pole or wireless support structure be replaced before the requested collocation, approval may be conditioned on such replacement of the utility pole or wireless support structure.
(7) If an application is denied, the basis for the denial shall be documented, including the specific code provisions, regulations or requirements on which the denial was based, and send the documentation to the applicant on or before the date that the application is denied. The applicant may cure the deficiencies identified by the town and resubmit the application within thirty days after the denial without paying an additional application fee. The town shall approve or deny the revised application within 30 days after receiving the revised application. Any subsequent review is limited to the deficiencies cited in the denial.
(Ord. 900, passed 1-11-18; Res. 3077, passed 1-11-18)