(1) Except as provided in Subsection (2) below, the Planning Board may approve a special permit or special permit modification relating to a PWSF only if the Planning Board finds:
(a) Federal law compliance. The PWSFs comply with all relevant federal statutory and regulatory requirements, including all applicable FCC, FAA, NEPA, and NHPA requirements;
(b) The applicable standards in Chapter
270 (Zoning), Article
XXIV (Special Permits and Special Approvals), §
270-200 (Considerations for approval) are met; and
(c) All of the following additional standards are met:
[1] Public utility status. Services provided by the proposed PWSFs are considered public utility services, and the provider of such services is considered a public utility, in the State of New York.
[2] Need. The applicant has proven a compelling need to address any significant gaps in the applicant's personal wireless services (the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network) through the proposed facilities and not through any other solution, and the facility presents a minimal intrusion on the community.
[a] To determine whether a gap is significant, the Planning Board shall consider, among other things, dropped call and failure rates, whether a gap is relatively large or small in geographic size, whether the number of the applicant's customers affected by the gap is relatively small or large, whether or not the location of the gap is situated on a lightly or heavily traveled road or in a sparsely or densely occupied area, and whether the applicant's customers are affected for only a limited period of time. A significant gap cannot be established simply because the applicant's personal wireless services operate on a frequency which is not the frequency most desired by the applicant. An applicant's claim of need for future capacity does not constitute evidence of a significant gap.
[b] In making the finding of compelling need, the Planning Board shall consider the evidence of a significant gap, the applicant's consideration of other sites and other means of addressing the gaps, and the feasibility of addressing the gaps through the use of other sites or other means.
[3] Compliance with Chapter
270 (Zoning) and other Town Code requirements. Complies with all requirements of this §
270-219, with all other requirements of this Chapter
270 (unless expressly superseded by this §
270-219), and all other applicable Ithaca Town Code requirements.
[4] Co-location on proposed towers. For non-SWFs, when construction of a tower is proposed, such a tower is designed to accommodate future shared use by at least two other PWSF providers.
[5] Aesthetic impacts. The proposed PWSFs will not inflict a significant adverse aesthetic impact upon properties that are located adjacent or in close proximity to the proposed site(s) or upon any other properties situated in a manner that such properties might reasonably be expected to sustain adverse aesthetic impacts.
[6] Impacts upon real estate values. The proposed PWSFs will not inflict a significant adverse impact upon the property values of properties that are located adjacent or in close proximity to the proposed site(s).
[7] Impact upon the character of the surrounding community. The proposed PWSFs will not be incompatible with the use and character of properties located adjacent or in close proximity to the proposed site(s), or with any other properties situated in a manner that the PWSFs might reasonably be expected to be incompatible with such properties.
[8] Mitigation. The applicant has mitigated the potential adverse impacts of the proposed PWSFs to the greatest extent reasonably feasible through siting, location and design.
(2) If the applicant asserts that a denial would constitute an effective prohibition, and the denial is based on a failure to comply with any of the standards in Subsection
R(1)(b) or
(c) above, then pursuant to federal law, the Planning Board must consider whether the proposed facilities are the least intrusive means of addressing a significant gap in the applicant's personal wireless services (the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network). A significant gap is not established simply because the applicant's personal wireless services operate on a frequency which is not the frequency most desired by the applicant. An applicant's claim of need for future capacity does not constitute evidence of a significant gap.
(a) The Planning Board shall consider, among other things, a) whether the proposed site is the least intrusive location at which a personal wireless service facility that remedies an identified significant gap may be located, and the applicant has reasonably established a lack of potential alternative less intrusive sites and lack of sites available for co-location, b) whether the specific location on the proposed portion of the selected site is the least intrusive portion of the site for the proposed installation, c) whether the height proposed for the personal wireless service facility is the minimum height necessary to remedy an established significant gap in service, d) whether a preexisting structure can be used to camouflage the personal wireless service facility, e) whether the installation mitigates adverse impacts to the greatest extent reasonably feasible, through the employ of stealth design, screening, use of color, and noise mitigation measures, and f) whether there is a feasible alternative to remedy the gap through alternative, less intrusive substitute facilities, such as the installation of more than one shorter facility instead of a single facility.
(b) If the Planning Board finds that the proposed facilities are the least intrusive means of addressing a significant gap in the applicant's personal wireless services, then pursuant to federal law, the Planning Board must grant site plan and special permit approvals.
