§ 10.10. Location of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.

(A)

Applicants for wireless telecommunications facilities shall locate, site and erect said wireless telecommunications facilities in accordance with the following priorities, one being the highest priority and five being the lowest priority.

(1)

On existing towers or other structures without increasing the height of the tower or structure.

(2)

On properties in areas zoned for GI, Ll, CA.

(3)

On properties in areas zoned for HC, GC, LC, NHC.

(4)

On properties in areas zoned for AG.

(5)

On properties in areas zoned for USD, MHP, MFR, RR, AGR, LRR, SFMD, PUD, CRVP, LR.

(B)

If the proposed site is not proposed for the highest priority listed above, then a detailed explanation and justification must be provided as to why a site of any higher priority designations was not selected. The applicant seeking a special use permit must satisfactorily demonstrate the reason or reasons why the proposed site was chosen and the reasons why higher priority locations were deemed unfit or undesirable.

(C)

An applicant may not bypass sites of higher priority by stating the site proposed is the only site leased or selected or because there is an existing lease with a landowner. An application shall address co-location as an option. If such option is not proposed, the applicant must explain to the reasonable satisfaction of the county why co-location is commercially impracticable or otherwise impracticable. Agreements between providers limiting or prohibiting co-location shall not be a valid basis for any claim of commercial impracticability or hardship.

(D)

Notwithstanding the above, the county may approve any site located within an area in the above list of priorities, provided that the county finds that the proposed site is in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of the county and its inhabitants and will not have a deleterious effect on the nature and character of the community and neighborhood. Conversely, the county may direct that the proposed location be changed to another location that is more in keeping with the goals of this article and the public interest as determined by the BOC.

(E)

If appropriate, based on selecting a site of lower priority, a detailed written explanation as to why sites of a higher priority were not selected shall be included with the application, including the technical justification for such.

(F)

Notwithstanding that a potential site may be situated in an area of highest priority or highest available priority, the county may disapprove an application for any of the following reasons:

(1)

Conflict with safety and safety-related codes and requirements;

(2)

Conflict with the historic nature or character of a neighborhood or district;

(3)

The use or construction of wireless telecommunications facilities which is contrary to an already stated purpose of a specific zoning or land use designation;

(4)

The placement and location of wireless telecommunications facilities which would create an unacceptable risk, or the reasonable probability of such, to residents, the public, employees and agents of the county, or employees of the service provider or other service providers;

(5)

The placement and location of a wireless telecommunications facility would result in a conflict with, compromise in or change of the nature or character of the surrounding area;

(6)

Conflicts with the provisions of this article;

(7)

Failure to submit a complete application as required under this article.

(G)

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this article, for good cause shown, such as the ability to utilize a shorter or less intrusive facility elsewhere and still accomplish the primary service objective, the county may require the relocation of a proposed site, including allowing for the fact that relocating the site chosen by the applicant may require the use of more than one site to provide substantially the same service if the relocation could result in a less intrusive facility or facilities, singly or in combination, so long as such does not prohibit or serve to prohibit the provision of service.

( Ord. No. 2010-07 , § I, 12-15-2009)