§ 62-2451. Specific application requirements and review process for new wireless telecommunication facilities.

(a)

Application materials.

(1)

All wireless telecommunications facility applications. In addition to the materials required elsewhere by the code for the appropriate type of review, all wireless facility applications shall provide sufficient materials (plans, graphics, narratives, or expert statements) to demonstrate compliance with the applicable requirements of this division.

(2)

Determination of need for a new tower. No new tower shall be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates that no existing tower or alternative structure within the applicant wireless provider's geographic search area can accommodate the applicant provider's proposed use antenna elements; or that use of such existing facilities would prohibit personal wireless services in the geographic search area to be served by the proposed antenna support structure. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide:

a.

A copy of the geographic search area of the wireless provider committed to locate on the tower and that is justifying the placement of the tower;

b.

An inventory of all existing towers or potential support structures equal in height to the proposed facility that are located within an area that is one-fourth of a mile in radius around the applicant's identified geographic search area;

c.

A written explanation documenting why an existing tower cannot reasonably be used, instead of building a new tower. Evidence submitted to demonstrate that no existing or approved tower or structure can accommodate the applicants proposed antenna may consist of any of the following:

1.

No existing or approved towers or structures are located within the required geographic area meet the applicant's engineering requirements.

2.

Existing or approved towers or structures are not of sufficient height to meet applicant's engineering requirements.

3.

Existing or approved towers or structures do not have sufficient structural strength and cannot be modified to support applicant's proposed antenna and related equipment.

4.

The applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with the antenna on the existing or approved towers or structures, or the antenna on the existing or approved towers or structures would cause interference with the applicant's proposed antenna.

5.

The fee, costs, or contractual provisions required by the owner in order to share an existing or approved tower or structure or to adapt an existing or approved tower or structure for sharing are unreasonable. Costs exceeding new tower development are presumed to be unreasonable.

6.

The applicant demonstrates that there are other limiting factors that render existing and/or approved towers and structures unsuitable, as documented by a qualified and licensed professional electrical engineer, as applicable.

(3)

Visual impact analysis. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed tower does not create a significant adverse visual aesthetic impact on the surrounding landscape and adjacent properties. Refer to criteria posted in section 62-2446(q).

(4)

Design preference justification. If the proposed tower is non-concealed, the applicant must file relevant information that demonstrates why a concealed tower is not technically feasible, practical, or justified, given the designed location and configuration of the proposed wireless communications facility, the land uses and features of the subject and surrounding properties within 300 feet of the subject property, and the criteria of minimizing adverse visual impacts on the aesthetics of the surrounding area as measured against the review factors indicated in this section.

(b)

Application completeness review. If the county determines the application and/or documentation fails to meet all the requirements of this division, then the county shall provide written notification to the applicant as to the materials which need to be amended or supplied for review. The applicant shall provide to the county any requested materials for review. This process shall continue until the county has approved the application package, at which time the applicant may proceed to request a building permit.

(1)

Within 20 business days of receipt of an application for a wireless communications facility, the county shall determine if the application form has been completed and if all required items have been submitted.

(2)

If county determines that the application is not complete and/or if all required items have not been submitted, the county shall, within the 20 business days of the application submittal, notify the applicant in writing that the application is incomplete "notification of incompletion". The notification of incompletion shall list, with specificity, those items that are incomplete and/or missing and indicate what must be provided to make the application complete.

(3)

If the applicant resubmits the additional information or revised application, the county shall review the resubmitted materials for completeness. If the application is still not complete, county shall send the applicant another notification of incompletion indicating the remaining deficiencies within the regular review timeframes, but in no case longer than 20 business days after the application is resubmitted.

(4)

Upon resubmitting the resubmittal of the revised site plan and paperwork materials, the county shall follow the process identified in subsections (b)(1) and (2) through (3) until all deficiencies identified are deemed cured and the application is deemed complete.

(5)

If the county does not respond in writing to the applicant within the specified timeframes detailed above, then the application shall be deemed approved to be properly complete.

(6)

When the application is deemed complete and all required items have been submitted, the county shall advise the applicant and begin processing the application.

(c)

Supplemental reviews. The county reserves the right to require a supplemental review for any other type of co-location, attachment, mitigated tower, new tower, or antenna element replacement subject to the following:

(1)

Where due to the complexity of the methodology or analysis required to review an application for any proposed or existing antenna support facility, the county may require the applicant to pay for a technical review by a third party expert, the costs of which shall be borne by the applicant and be in addition to other applicable fees. The supplemental review fees shall be a fixed sum and shall be established by separate resolution. Schedules of current fees are posted in the planning division office.

(2)

Based on the results of the expert review, the approving authority may require changes to the applicant's application or submittals.

(3)

The supplemental review may address any or all of the following:

a.

The accuracy and completeness of the application and accompanying documentation.

b.

The applicability of analysis techniques and methodologies.

c.

The validity of conclusions reached.

d.

Whether the proposed wireless communications facility complies with the applicable approval criteria set forth in these codes.

e.

Other items deemed by the county to be relevant to determining whether a proposed wireless communications facility complies with the provisions of these codes.

(d)

Application review timeframes.

(1)

Review timeframe for wireless telecommunications facilities. The county shall review and grant or deny each properly completed application for all wireless communications facilities other than expedited review co-locations within 90 business days from the date the application is determined to be properly complete.

(2)

If the county does not grant or deny a properly completed application for a within the timeframes set forth above, the application shall be deemed automatically approved and the applicant may proceed with the next level of review or, if no additional levels of review are required, with the placement of the wireless communications facility.

(3)

For level III applications only, the 90 business-day time frame may be extended if the hearing on the conditional use permit before the board of county commissioners, following the review process and timeframe applicable to all conditional use approvals for all uses, cannot reasonably occur within the 90 business days. Under such circumstances, the board must either grant or deny the application at a regularly scheduled meeting prior to the 90 business days' expiration or the application shall be deemed automatically approved.

(4)

These time frames may be waived, if a waiver is voluntarily agreed to by the applicant and the county. A one-time waiver may be required by the county, without the applicant's consent, in the case of a declared local, state, or federal emergency, which directly affects the permitting activities of the county, for the length of that emergency.

(Ord. No. 2014-30, § 39, 10-2-14)