(A) Administrative review procedure. The following administrative review process shall apply to all WCF applications eligible for administrative review.
(1) Review authority. Review of proposed WCF’s under this section shall be conducted by the Zoning Administrator upon filing a TAP application.
(2) Review criteria. Each TAP application shall be reviewed for compliance with the development standards specified in § 154.368.
(3) Timing decision. The Zoning Administrator shall render a decision on the TAP application by written response to the applicant within 20 business days after receipt of the complete application, except that the applicant may agree upon an extension.
(4) Application approval. If the TAP application is in compliance with the development standards in § 154.368, and otherwise meets the requirements of this section, the Zoning Administrator shall issue a TAP.
(5) Application denial/appeal process. If the Zoning Administrator denies administrative approval, the reason for denial must be made to the applicant in writing. The applicant may appeal the denial to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall hear the appeal within ten days of receiving a written request from the applicant. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall submit a written determination on the appeal to the applicant and to the Zoning Administrator within five working days of the conclusion of the appeal hearing. If the Zoning Board of Appeals denies administrative approval, the applicant may appeal the denial to the City Council for final determination in approving or denying the TAP application.
(B) Special use permit review procedure. The following shall apply to all TAP applications requiring submission to the Zoning Board of Appeals for review in accordance with § 154.036, Special Use Permits. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall consider the following in reaching a decision:
(1) Review criteria. Each TAP application shall be reviewed for compliance with the development standards set forth in § 154.368.
(2) Tower siting conditions. The Zoning Administrator may require that conditions and restrictions on the application or on the premises benefited by the TAP, as it deems necessary to reduce or minimize any adverse effects and to enhance the compatibility of the WCF with the surrounding property, in accordance with the purposes and intent of this subchapter.
(3) Factors in granting special use permits for towers. In addition to any standards for consideration of special use permit applications pursuant to § 154.036, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall consider the following factors while reviewing TAP applications on new towers:
(a) Height of the proposed tower;
(b) Proximity of the tower to residential structures and Residential District boundaries;
(c) Nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties;
(d) Surrounding topography;
(e) Surrounding tree coverage and foliage; and
(f) Proposed ingress and egress.
(4) Availability of suitable existing towers, other structures or alternative technology. No new support structure shall be permitted unless the applicant submits a written brief demonstrating that no existing tower, structure, or alternative technology that does not require the use of towers or structures, can accommodate the applicant’s proposed WCF. Evidence submitted to demonstrate that no existing tower or structure can accommodate the applicant’s proposed WCF shall be prepared by a qualified and licensed Illinois professional engineer and may consist of one or more of the following:
(a) Existing towers or structures are not located within a reasonable geographic area, which meet the applicant’s engineering requirements.
(b) Existing towers or structures are not of sufficient height to meet the applicant’s engineering requirements.
(c) Existing towers or structures can not be altered to provide sufficient structural strength.
(d) The applicant’s proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with the antenna on the existing towers or structures, or the antenna on the existing towers or structures would cause interference with the applicant’s proposed antenna.
(e) The fees, costs or contractual provisions required by the owner in order to share an existing tower or structure, or to adapt an existing tower or structure for sharing, are unreasonable based upon market information. Costs exceeding new tower development are presumed to be unreasonable.
(f) The applicant demonstrates that there are other limiting factors that render existing towers and structures unsuitable.
(g) The applicant demonstrates that an alternative technology that does not require the use of towers or structures is unsuitable.
(h) Applicants are required to demonstrate by providing proof of certified mailings or other reasonable means:
1. That they have contacted the owners of reasonably suitable structures within a 1,000 foot radius of the proposed site and, which from a location standpoint, could provide part of a network for transmission of signals;
2. Have asked for permission to install the antenna on those structures; and
3. Were denied for reasons other than economic feasibility.
(Ord. O-2014-06, passed 8-11-14)