(a) Statement of Policy. It is the policy of the Village to minimize the overall number of attached wireless communication facilities and wireless communication support structures within the community, consistent with the statement of purpose and intent set forth in Section 1476.01. Each licensed provider of a wireless communication facility must, by law, be permitted to locate sufficient facilities in order to achieve the objectives promulgated by the United States Congress. However, particularly in light of the dramatic increase in the number of wireless communication facilities reasonably anticipated to occur as a result of the recent change of Federal law and policy in and relating to the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, it is the policy of the Village that all users should collocate on attached wireless communication facilities and wireless communication support structures in the interest of achieving the purposes and intent of this section, as stated above, and as stated in Section 1476.01. If a provider fails or refuses to permit collocation on a facility owned or otherwise controlled by it, where collocation is feasible, the result will be the need for a new and unnecessary additional structure which is in direct violation of and in direct contradiction to the basic policy, intent and purpose of the Village. The provisions of this subsection are designed to carry out and encourage conformity with the policy of the Village.
(b) Feasibility of Collocation. Collocation shall be deemed to be feasible for purposes of this section where all of the following are met:
(1) The provider entity being considered for collocation will undertake to pay market rent or other market compensation for collocation.
(2) The site on which collocation is being considered, including reasonable modification or replacement of a facility, is able to provide structural support.
(3) The collocation being considered is technologically reasonable, e.g., the collocation will not result in unreasonable interference, given appropriate physical and other adjustment, in relation to the structure, antennas and the like.
(c) Requirements for Collocation.
(1) A special land use permit for the construction and use of a new wireless communication facility shall not be granted unless and until the applicant demonstrates that a feasible collocation is not available for the coverage area and capacity needs.
(2) All new and modified wireless communication facilities shall be designed and constructed so as to accommodate collocation.
(3) If a party who owns or otherwise controls a wireless communication facility shall fail or refuse to alter a structure so as to accommodate a proposed and otherwise feasible collocation, such facility shall thereupon and thereafter be deemed to be a nonconforming structure and use, and shall not be altered, expanded or extended in any respect.
(4) If a party who owns or otherwise controls a wireless communication facility shall fail or refuse to permit a feasible collocation, and this failure or refusal requires the construction and/or use of a new facility, the party failing or refusing to permit a feasible collocation shall be deemed to be in direct violation and contradiction of the policy, intent and purposes of the Village, and, consequently, such party shall be prohibited from receiving approval for a new wireless communication support structure within the Village for a period of five years from the date of the failure or refusal to permit the collocation, unless such party shall seek and obtain a variance from the Planning Commission upon proving that a new facility is clearly necessary in order to operate the respective communication system, considering all feasible alternatives.
(d) Incentive. Review of an application for collocation, and review of an application for a permit for the use of an existing facility, shall be expedited by the Village.
NOTE: A COMMUNITY MAY DETERMINE THAT REVIEW SHOULD MERELY REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW WHERE STRUCTURAL ALTERATION IS NOT NECESSARY, PARTICULARLY FOR STRUCTURES ON WHICH COLLOCATION WAS PRE-APPROVED WHEN THE FACILITY WAS INITIALLY ESTABLISHED.
(Ord. 97-1-8. Passed 2-4-97.)