WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES ORDINANCE

CONTENTSSection 1 Title - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1Section 2 Authority - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1Section 3 Purpose - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1Section 4 Applicability - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3

4.1 Exemptions - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3Section 5 Review and Approval Authority - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4

5.1 Approval Required - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 45.2 Approval Authority - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5

Section 6 Approval Process - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 56.1 Pre-Application Conference - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 56.2 Application - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 56.3 Submission Waiver - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 136.4 Fees - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 146.5 Notice of Complete Application - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 156.6 Public Hearing - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 166.7 Approval - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16

Section 7 Standards of Review - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 177.1 CEO Approval Standards - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 177.2 Planning Board Approval Standards - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 187.3 Standard Conditions of Approval - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 25

Section 8 Amendment to an Approved Application - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 27Section 9 Abandonment - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 27Section 10 Appeals - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 28Section 11 Administration and Enforcement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 28Section 12 Penalties - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 29Section 13 Conflict and Severability - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 29

13.1 Conflicts with other Ordinances - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2913.2 Severability - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 29

Section 14 Definitions - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 30Section 15 Effective - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34

The Title section can be eliminated if this ordinance isincorporated into an existing Site Plan or other Land UseOrdinance. Brackets indicate where the municipality shouldinsert its name.

The Authority section is needed to describe how themunicipality derives its power from the State to adoptordinances. It can be deleted if this ordinance is made part ofan existing ordinance that already has this provision.

The Purpose section gives the reasons for the ordinance.Municipalities are not required to have this section, but it helpsmunicipal officials and courts interpret the ordinance. Thissection establishes the community benefits for regulating thesefacilities. Users should be careful to tailor this section to theirneeds, and the community needs should be based ondocumented facts, such as a scenic inventory. See theDefinitions section for the term “wireless telecommunicationsfacilities.”

As discussed more fully in the literature accompanying thismodel ordinance, the Wireless Telecommunications Act of 1996opened the industry up to wide competition. With respect tolocal land use control, the Act provides as follows:

The Act prohibits municipalities from banning thesefacilities within the municipality;

Section 1. Title

This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "WirelessTelecommunications Facilities Siting Ordinance" of[municipality], Maine, (hereinafter referred to as the“ordinance").

Section 2. Authority

This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the enabling provisionsof Article VIII, Part 2, Section 1 of the Maine Constitution; theprovisions of Title 30-A M.R.S.A. Section 3001 (Home Rule),and the provisions of the Planning and Land Use Regulation Act,Title 30-A M.R.S.A. Section 4312 et seq.

Section 3. Purpose

The purpose of this ordinance is to provide a process and a setof standards for the construction of wirelesstelecommunications facilities in order to:

Implement a municipal policy concerning the provisionof wireless telecommunications services, and the sitingof their facilities;

Establish clear guidelines, standards and time frames forthe exercise of municipal authority to regulate wirelesstelecommunications facilities;

Allow competition in telecommunications service;

1

The Act prohibits municipalities from effectivelyprohibiting them, (much like Maine state law concerningmobile home parks);

The Act permits municipalities to limit the location andnumber of facilities, provided all functionally equivalentcarriers are treated equally;

The Act requires municipalities to make their decisionsin writing and based on substantial evidence the Actrequires that municipal decisions must be made within areasonable period of time.

The Applicability section describes the activities that areregulated under this ordinance. This model applies to allwireless telecommunication facilities, but a municipality can limitthe application to address fewer facilities.

Encourage the provision of advancedtelecommunications services to the largest number ofbusinesses, institutions and residents of [municipality];

Permit and manage reasonable access to the publicrights of way of [municipality] for telecommunicationspurposes on a competitively neutral basis;

Ensure that all telecommunications carriers providingfacilities or services within [municipality] comply withthe ordinances of [municipality];

Ensure that [municipality] can continue to fairly andresponsibly protect the public health, safety and welfare;

Encourage the colocation of wirelesstelecommunications facilities , thus helping to minimizeadverse visual impacts on the community;

Enable [municipality] to discharge its public trustconsistent with rapidly evolving federal and stateregulatory policies, industry competition andtechnological development;

Further the goals and policies of the comprehensiveplan, while promoting orderly development of the townwith minimal impacts on existing uses; and

Protect the scenic and visual character of thecommunity.

2

The Exemptions section describes the activities that will not bereviewed under this ordinance. Municipalities should determinewhether other ordinances apply to these facilities, and decidewhether similar exemptions should be given to these facilities inthose ordinances.

This model ordinance exempts emergency communicationsfacilities used by public officials only. Municipalities shouldconsider exempting similar facilities used by private interests.

The Federal Telecommunications Act exempts amateur “ham”radio stations. This model exempts other facilities for ease ofadministration. See Definitions section for “FCC”.

Parabolic antennas (i.e.. satellite dishes) are exempt becausethey are commonly accessory residential uses, so thenumerous reviews might be burdensome on both the propertyowner and the municipality.

Maintenance and repair are exempt if they don’t alter the size ofthe facility, because these activities usually don’t change theimpact of the facility on the community. This model alsoexempts reconstruction of facilities, but municipalities shouldconsider whether certain reconstruction projects should bereviewed in order to bring nonconforming uses into complianceand to promote colocation existing facilities. See Definitionssection for “height.”

The exemption for temporary facilities allows “COWs” (cellularon wheels) to be erected for initial market coverage while thepermanent facility is established. This exemption also allowsshort term facilities for media or events. The municipalityshould determine a maximum time period based on the needsof the service providers in the community. This modelordinance exempts accessory antennas for residences only.Municipalities should consider whether to grant a similarexemption for public service or other purposes as well.

Section 4. Applicability

This local land use ordinance applies to all construction andexpansion of wireless telecommunications facilities, except asprovided in section 4.1.

4.1. Exemptions

The following are exempt from the provisions of thisordinance:

A.) Emergency Wireless TelecommunicationsFacility. Temporary wireless communication facilitiesfor emergency communications by public officials.

B.) Amateur (ham) radio stations. Amateur (ham)radio stations licensed by the Federal CommunicationsCommission (FCC).

C.) Parabolic antenna. Parabolic Antennas less thanseven (7) feet in diameter, that are an accessory use ofthe property.

D.) Maintenance or repair. Maintenance, repair orreconstruction of a wireless telecommunications facilityand related equipment, provided that there is no changein the height or any other dimension of the facility.

3

The Review and Approval Authority section sets out theapproval requirement for facilities. It also gives the CEO andPlanning Board the authority to review applications and makefindings.

This model gives preference to colocation by providing astreamlined CEO permitting process and fewer standards.Municipalities may not want to have the CEO make thisdecision. An alternative approach is to require all projects to bereviewed by the Planning Board, but still using the streamlinedprocess and criteria for certain projects like colocation. SeeDefinitions section for “colocation” and “expansion.”

The Pre-Application Conference allows the municipality toexplain the process and standards to the applicant, and allowscoordination of local, State, and federal reviews. Theconference can be used to identify alternative sites to theapplicant which it might not have considered, especially as far

E.) Temporary wireless telecommunicationsfacility. Temporary wireless telecommunicationsfacility, in operation for a maximum period of onehundred eighty (180) days.

F.) Antennas as Accessory Uses. An antenna thatis an accessory use to a residential dwelling unit.

Section 5. Review and Approval Authority

5.1. Approval Required

No person shall construct or expand a wirelesstelecommunication facility without approval of the CodeEnforcement Officer (CEO) or the Planning Board as follows:

A.) Expansion of an Existing Facility andColocation. Approval by the CEO is required for anyexpansion of an existing wireless telecommunicationsfacility that increases the height of the facility by nomore than 20 feet; accessory use of an existing wirelesstelecommunications facility; or colocation on an existingwireless telecommunications facility.

B.) New Construction. Approval of the PlanningBoard is required for construction of a new wirelesstelecommunications facility; and any expansion of anexisting wireless telecommunications facility thatincreases the height of the facility by more than 20 feet.

4

as the possible visual impacts are concerned. Applicants andCEOs are cautioned that this pre-application conference is todetermine what the submission materials will be, not to discussthe merits of those materials as they may satisfy local concernsregarding the visual impacts of the proposed development.

Municipalities with planners on staff may want to requireapplicants to meet with the Planner first, instead of the CEO orPlanning Board. Likewise, the applicant may want to have apre-application meeting with the Planning Board in a workshopforum before investing a great deal of time and money insystem buildout to identify significant issues.

The Application needs to require enough information for theCEO or the Planning Board to determine whether the proposedfacility meets the standards described in the next section. Thismodel ordinance allows the CEO to establish the form of theapplication. Municipalities may want to adopt a form specificallyfor the CEO application. The CEO Application is shorter thanthe Planning Board Application because the former is notrequired to review a project with the same level of scrutiny asthe Planning Board.

This information helps ensure that the applicant meets thestandard for having a legal interest in the property. For anonowner of the site, the legal interest may include a lease,easement or option to purchase the property.

The FCC regulates wireless telecommunications facilities, andrequires license holders to complete a review of the facilityunder the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) andthe National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). These reviewsassure that, in addition to review of impacts upon historic sitesand structures, all Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions issueshave been addressed at the federal level, an issue which thefederal Telecommunications Act specifically exempts frommunicipal review.

5.2 Approval Authority

In accordance with Section 5.1 above, the CEO or PlanningBoard shall review applications for wireless telecommunicationsfacilities, and make written findings on whether the proposedfacility complies with this Ordinance.

Section 6. Approval Process

6.1. Pre-Application Conference

All persons seeking approval of the CEO or the Planning Boardunder this ordinance shall meet with the CEO no less thanthirty (30) days before filing an application. At this meeting, theCEO shall explain to the applicant the ordinance provisions, aswell as application forms and submissions that will be requiredunder this ordinance.

6.2. Application

All persons seeking approval of the CEO or the Planning Boardunder this ordinance shall submit an application as providedbelow. The CEO shall be responsible for ensuring that noticeof the application has been published in a newspaper of generalcirculation in the community.

A.) Application for CEO Approval. Applicationsfor permit approval by the CEO must include thefollowing materials and information:

1.) Documentation of the applicant’s right, title, orinterest in the property where the facility is to be

5

The NEPA review includes analysis of impacts on the naturalenvironment and historic places. This application requirementseeks to ensure that the NEPA review is performed prior to, orat the same time, as the submission of the application. Impactson historic districts or structures are assessed by either thelocal Historical Society or the Maine Historic PreservationCommission. See the Appendix for more information on thisreview. See Definitions section for “Historic.” If this review isalready required under the provisions of another ordinance, thisrequirement could be deleted.

This information helps the reviewing authority determinewhether the application meets the standards for Height, Color,Materials, and Visual Impacts.

This requirement corresponds to the standard conditions ofapproval. The commitment helps the municipality encouragecolocation of facilities in the future.

The municipality must decide whether applications are to besubmitted to the CEO or the municipal planner.

sited, including name and address of the propertyowner and the applicant.

2.) A copy of the FCC license for the facility or asigned statement from the owner or operator of thefacility attesting that the facility complies withcurrent FCC regulations.

3.) Identification of districts, sites, buildings,structures or objects, significant in American history,architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture,that are listed, or eligible for listing, in the NationalRegister of Historic Places (see 16 U.S.C. 470w(5);36 CFR 60 and 800).

4.) Location map and elevation drawings of theproposed facility and any other proposed structures,showing color, and identifying structural materials.

5.) For proposed expansion of a facility, a signedstatement that commits the owner of the facility,and his or her successors in interest, to:

a.) respond in a timely, comprehensive mannerto a request for information from a potentialcolocation applicant, in exchange for areasonable fee not in excess of the actual cost ofpreparing a response;

b.) negotiate in good faith for shared use bythird parties;

6

This information helps the Planning Board determine whetherthe application meets the standard for having adequate right,title or interest in the property. For a nonowner of the site, thelegal interest may include a lease, easement or purchaseoption.

This information helps the Planning Board determine that theapplicant meets FCC standards for radio frequency emissions,financial capability, and the right to develop their “build-out”capability.

This information helps the Planning Board decide whether theapplication meets this standard for location. By identifying allstructures and facilities above 150 feet, new opportunities forcolocation may be discovered. Exempting rooftop antennasfrom mapping eliminates undue hardship on the applicant.Municipalities may also want to adjust the height requirement tosuit local conditions. These issues can be discussed during thepre-application conference.

The site plan helps the Planning Board understand the impactsof the facility on abutting properties. It also helps the PlanningBoard decide whether the application meets the standards forsetbacks and structural integrity.

c.) allow shared use if an applicant agrees inwriting to pay reasonable charges for colocation;

d.) require no more than a reasonable chargefor shared use, based on community rates andgenerally accepted accounting principles. Thischarge may include but is not limited to a prorata share of the cost of site selection, planningproject administration, land costs, site design,construction and maintenance, financing, returnon equity, depreciation, and all of the costs ofadopting the tower or equipment toaccommodate a shared user without causingelectromagnetic interference.

B.) Application for Planning Board Approval. Anapplication for approval by the Planning Board must besubmitted to the Code Enforcement Officer Theapplication must include the following information:

1.) Documentation of the applicant’s right, title, orinterest in the property on which the facility is to besited, including name and address of the propertyowner and the applicant.

2.) A copy of the FCC license for the facility, or asigned statement from the owner or operator of thefacility attesting that the facility complies withcurrent FCC regulations.

3.) A USGS 7.5 minute topographic map showingthe location of all structures and wirelesstelecommunications facilities above 150 feet in

7

One of the major concerns with these facilities is their aestheticimpact on the community. This information helps the PlanningBoard decide whether the application meets the standards forcolor, materials, landscaping, and lighting to address thisconcern. "Stealth" or camouflaging techniques can be used tomake antennas less obtrusive, though they have not yet beenused in Maine.

Photo simulations provide the Planning Board with informationto decide whether the application meets the standard for color,materials, and visual impact. This information can also be usedfor determining compliance with a visual impact standard, ifadopted by a municipality (See Appendix).

Photo simulations, as part of the application, should be reliedupon by the Planning Board based on their:

Representativeness, in that the simulation representsimportant and typical views of the project;

Accuracy, in that the similarity between the simulation andthe reality will be easily recognizable to the average citizen;

height above ground level, except antennas locatedon roof tops, within a five (5) mile radius of theproposed facility, unless this information has beenpreviously made available to the municipality. Thisrequirement may be met by submitting currentinformation (within thirty days of the date theapplication is filed) from the FCC TowerRegistration Database.

4.) A site plan:

a.) prepared and certified by a professionalengineer registered in Maine indicating thelocation, type, and height of the proposedfacility, antenna capacity, on-site and abuttingoff-site land uses, means of access, setbacks fromproperty lines, and all applicable AmericanNational Standards Institute (ANSI) technical andstructural codes;

b.) certification by the applicant that theproposed facility complies with all FCCstandards for radio emissions is required; and

c.) a boundary survey for the project performedby a land surveyor licensed by the State ofMaine.

5.) A scenic assessment, consisting of the following:

a.) Elevation drawings of the proposed facility,and any other proposed structures, showingheight above ground level;

8

Visual clarity, in that the details, parts, and overall contentsshall be clearly recognizable;

Legitimacy, in that the simulation is defensible as to theveracity of its attempts to reproduce reality.

The narrative provides the municipality with importantinformation about the overall coverage requirements necessaryto meet the applicant’s “build-out” over the long term.Specifically, it helps the Planning Board decide whether thestandard for location has been met, and the reasons whycolocation is not feasible. See additional information included inthe appendix, specifically the FCC Fact Sheets.

For Maine communities, the first step is to assess whether thereare visual impacts as a result of the proposed facility. TheVisual Impact Standards (below) set out the parameters bywhich the Planning Board will review the project’s potentialvisual impacts. The first review criteria has to do with whether ascenic resource (as identified in the adopted comprehensiveplan) would be affected. If the resource has not been identifiedin the plan, then the town’s ability to regulate based on impactsto this resource may be severely limited. The Appendixcontains more detailed information regarding this issue.

This evidence of existing facility review is used by the PlanningBoard to determine whether the facility meets the prioritylocation standard. This requirement seeks to compel theapplicant to look for a location that meets the municipalpreferences.

This structural strength evidence will help providedocumentation of the Board’s decision. See Definitionssection for “targeted market coverage area.”

b.) A landscaping plan indicating the proposedplacement of the facility on the site; location ofexisting structures, trees, and other significantsite features; the type and location of plantsproposed to screen the facility; the method offencing, the color of the structure, and theproposed lighting method.

c.) Photo simulations of the proposed facilitytaken from perspectives determined by thePlanning Board, or their designee, during thepre-application conference. Each photo must belabeled with the line of sight, elevation, and withthe date taken imprinted on the photograph. Thephotos must show the color of the facility andmethod of screening.

9

d.) A narrative discussing:

i.) the extent to which the proposed facilitywould be visible from or within a designatedscenic resource,

ii.) the tree line elevation of vegetationwithin 100 feet of the facility, and

iii.) the distance to the proposed facilityfrom the designated scenic resource’s notedviewpoints.

6.) A written description of how the proposedfacility fits into the applicant’s telecommunicationsnetwork. This submission requirement does notrequire disclosure of confidential businessinformation.

7.) Evidence demonstrating that no existingbuilding, site, or structure can accommodate theapplicant's proposed facility, the evidence for whichmay consist of any one or more of the following:

a.) Evidence that no existing facilities arelocated within the targeted market coveragearea as required to meet the applicant'sengineering requirements,

b.) Evidence that existing facilities do not havesufficient height or cannot be increased in height

10

This requirement corresponds to the Standard Condition ofApproval. The signed statement from the owner helps themunicipality encourage colocation of facilities in the future.Using this requirement in conjunction with the design standards,the municipality can ensure that colocation remains a viableoption.

at a reasonable cost to meet the applicant'sengineering requirements,

c.) Evidence that existing facilities do not havesufficient structural strength to supportapplicant's proposed antenna and relatedequipment. Specifically:

i.) Planned, necessary equipment wouldexceed the structural capacity of the existingfacility, considering the existing and planneduse of those facilities, and these existingfacilities cannot be reinforced toaccommodate the new equipment.

ii.) The applicant's proposed antenna orequipment would cause electromagneticinterference with the antenna on the existingtowers or structures, or the antenna orequipment on the existing facility wouldcause interference with the applicant'sproposed antenna.

iii.) Existing or approved facilities do nothave space on which planned equipment canbe placed so it can function effectively.

d.) For facilities existing prior to the effectivedate of this ordinance, the fees, costs, orcontractual provisions required by the owner inorder to share or adapt an existing facility areunreasonable. Costs exceeding the pro ratashare of a new facility development are

11

The surety establishes the financial capability of the applicant toremove an abandoned facility (see Abandonment sectionbelow).

presumed to be unreasonable. This evidenceshall also be satisfactory for a tower built afterthe passage of this ordinance;

e.) Evidence that the applicant has made diligentgood faith efforts to negotiate colocation on anexisting facility, building, or structure, and hasbeen denied access;

8.) Identification of districts, sites, buildings,structures or objects, significant in American history,architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture,that are listed, or eligible for listing, in the NationalRegister of Historic Places (see 16 U.S.C. 470w(5);36 CFR 60 and 800).

9.) A signed statement stating that the owner of thewireless telecommunications facility and his or hersuccessors and assigns agree to:

a.) respond in a timely, comprehensive mannerto a request for information from a potentialcolocation applicant, in exchange for areasonable fee not in excess of the actual cost ofpreparing a response;

b.) negotiate in good faith for shared use of thewireless telecommunications facility by thirdparties;

c.) allow shared use of the wirelesstelecommunications facility if an applicant agrees

12

The Application Fee should not be included with the ReviewFee. The application fee covers administrative costs which maybe different for CEO review and Planning Board review.

The Review Fee covers the costs of consultants to help themunicipality to review the application. The need for an outsideconsultant is the Planning Board’s choice, based on someestablished practice. The consultation fees must be“reasonable and customary” for the community, and themunicipality is urged to check the consultant’s references.Municipalities can create an escrow account for this purpose,and any balance must be returned to the applicant.The “Model Subdivision Regulations” Article 13 PerformanceGuarantees may serve as a good model for various feestructures.

in writing to pay reasonable charges forcolocation;

d.) require no more than a reasonable chargefor shared use, based on community rates andgenerally accepted accounting principles. Thischarge may include but is not limited to a prorata share of the cost of site selection, planningproject administration, land costs, site design,construction, financing, return on equity,depreciation, and all of the costs of adapting thetower or equipment to accommodate a shareduser without causing electromagneticinterference. The amortization of the abovecosts by the facility owner shall be accomplishedat a reasonable rate, over the useful life span ofthe facility.

12.) A form of surety approved by the PlanningBoard to pay for the costs of removing the facility ifit is abandoned.

13.) Evidence that a notice of the application hasbeen published in a local newspaper of generalcirculation in the community.

6.3. Submission Waiver

The CEO or Planning Board, as appropriate, may waive anyof the submission requirements based upon a writtenrequest of the applicant submitted at the time ofapplication. A waiver of any submission requirement maybe granted only if the CEO or Planning Board finds in

13

The Notice of Complete Application starts the clock for thereview process.

Where there are Planning Departments, or where the MunicipalEngineer has responsibility for review of these types ofapplications, copies of the application should be forwarded tothem.

The municipality might wish to develop a standard form just forthese uses to be used for abutter notification.

writing that due to special circumstances of the application,the information is not required to determine compliancewith the standards of this Ordinance.

6.4. Fees

A.) CEO Application Fee

An application for CEO approval shall include paymentof an application fee of $__________. The applicationshall not be considered complete until this fee is paid.The applicant is entitled to a refund of the applicationfee if the application is withdrawn within fifteen (15)days of date of filing, less all expenses incurred by the[municipality] to review the application.

B.) Planning Board Application Fee

An application for Planning Board approval shall includepayment of an application fee of $__________. Theapplication shall not be considered complete until thisfee is paid. An applicant is entitled to a refund of theapplication portion of fee if the application is withdrawnwithin fifteen (15) days of date of filing, less all expensesincurred by the [municipality] to review the application.

C. Planning Board Review Fee

An applicant for approval by the Planning Board shall payall reasonable and customary fees incurred by themunicipality that are necessary to review theapplication. The review fee shall be paid in full prior tothe start of construction.

14

This model ordinance provides for a mandatory public hearing,but this is not required under State law. A municipality may givethe Planning Board discretion to decide whether to hold ahearing.

This CEO Approval is for use in municipalities which allow theirCode Officers to make findings and approve applications.Where this is not the case, this section should be struck.Remember, however, that the point of having the CEO reviewand approve applications is to further the goal of encouragingcolocation.

This requirement protects both parties’ interests in that it beginsthe time period for appeal of the municipal decision.

That portion of the review fee not used shall bereturned to the applicant within fourteen (14) days ofthe Planning Board’s decision.

6.5. Notice of Complete Application

Upon receipt of an application, the CEO shall provide theapplicant with a dated receipt. Within five (5) working days ofreceipt of an application the CEO shall review the applicationand determine if the application meets the submissionrequirements. The CEO or Planing Board, as appropriate, shallreview any requests for a waiver from the submissionrequirements and shall act on these requests prior todetermining the completeness of the application.

If the application is complete, the CEO shall notify the applicantin writing of this determination and require the applicant toprovide a sufficient number of copies of the application to the[Planning Board, Planning Office, Code Enforcement Office,Engineering Department, Police Department, and FireDepartment].

If the application is incomplete, the CEO shall notify theapplicant in writing, specifying the additional materials orinformation required to complete the application.

If the application is deemed to be complete, and requiresPlanning Board review, the CEO shall notify all abutters to thesite as shown on the Assessor’s records, by first-class mail, thatan application has been accepted. This notice shall contain abrief description of the proposed activity and the name of theapplicant, give the location of a copy of the application available

15

Note the definition of unreasonable adverse impact below, inthe Definitions section.

for inspection, and provide the date, time, and place of thePlanning Board meeting at which the application will beconsidered. Failure on the part of any abutter to receive suchnotice shall not be grounds for delay of any consideration ofthe application nor denial of the project.

6.6. Public Hearing

For applications for Planning Board approval under Section5.1(B), a public hearing shall be held within 30 days of thenotice of the complete application.

6.7. Approval

A.) CEO Approval. Within thirty (30) days ofreceiving a complete application for approval undersection 5.1(A), the CEO shall approve, approve withconditions, or deny the application in writing, togetherwith the findings on which that decision is based. TheCEO shall approve the application if the CEO finds thatthe application complies with the provisions in Section7.1 of this ordinance.

The CEO shall notify all abutters of the decision to issuea permit under this section. The time period may beextended upon agreement between the applicant andthe CEO.

B.) Planning Board Approval. Within ninety (90)days of receiving a complete application for approvalunder section 5.1(B), the Planning Board shall approve,approve with conditions, or deny the application inwriting, together with the findings on which that

16

The Priority of Locations standard sets out a preference forcolocation over new facilities. The applicant is required to showthat colocation is not feasible before the Planning Board willapprove new construction. An alternative approach is todesignate areas where these facilities are permitted.

It is important to review the discussion below on “VisualImpacts” to help understand the value that this prioritizationprovides to the overall review and approval process.

The municipality may wish to contract the services of a qualifiedconsultant to review all sites that would serve within the carrier’s“target coverage area.” However, this review must be carefulnot to produce the effect of “effectively prohibiting the provisionof service,” as counter to the federal act.

The municipality must establish standards for use on publicproperty.

If colocation is in any district is a higher priority for thecommunity, then a facility's location in a Residential districtwould raise that district’s priority. Likewise, the municipalitymay change the order of priorities, but must remain careful notto effectively exclude all carriers from all locations.

In addition, location and height (see Section 7.2(D) below)must be considered together so that the Planning Board doesn’tdiscriminate against an equivalent provider. Beyond that, thereare a myriad of choices a municipality may use to meet its ownparticular goals, be they for more numerous, shorter facilities, ortaller and fewer ones.

decision is based. However, if the Planning Board has awaiting list of applications that would prevent thePlanning Board from making a decision within therequired ninety (90) day time period, then a decision onthe application shall be issued within sixty (60) days ofthe public hearing, if necessary, or within 60 days of thecompleted Planning Board review. This time period maybe extended upon agreement between the applicant andthe Planning Board.

Section 7. Standards of Review

To obtain approval from the CEO or the Planning Board, anapplication must comply with the standards in this section.

7.1. CEO Approval Standards

An application for approval by the CEO under Section 5.1(A)must meet the following standards.

A.) The proposed facility is an expansion, accessoryuse, or colocation to a structure existing at the time theapplication is submitted.

B.) The applicant has sufficient right, title, or interestto locate the proposed facility on the existing structure.

C.) The proposed facility increases the height of theexiting structure by no more than twenty (20) feet.

D.) The proposed facility will be constructed withmaterials and colors that match or blend with the

17

If a community wants to limit the height of facilities, beingcareful not to effectively prohibit them, then the “carrot” must bethe ease of colocation. Like a large umbrella, the higher thetower, the larger the sphere of coverage, and the fewer numberof towers required for the first two phases of build-out -coverage and intermediate (see the Appendix).

Another critical element for determining the number of facilitiesis population density. The industry is market driven, and thatmarket is primarily driven by population densities. The greaterthe densities, ultimately the greater the number of antennas. Ifthere are not suitable colocation opportunities, then there will bemore facilities (a.k.a., tower).

If a community wants to require colocation, then leeway must beleft for either building a larger tower first, or being able toexpand on that tower as a colocator. Communities which areflexible but clear have been the winners - towers located wherethey are least obtrusive, or located where the public eye mustfind them among the din of everyday life - telephone poles andlines, industrial fixtures, etc. In order for colocation to work, itmust be the easiest path, with the least resistance for thecarrier. If the town wants only the minimum intrusion, then onetall, well placed tower with plenty of colocation options may bethe best route.

An alternative Location standard designates areas wherefacilities may be constructed. This is useful if the communitywants to create “tower farms” in appropriate locations. Thisapproach must be carefully considered so that it does notexclude or discriminate against service providers, in violation ofthe federal Telecommunications Act. Towers are oftenpermitted in Business, Commercial, and Industrial Districts, andmunicipalities with significant residential districts shouldconsider some accommodations to wireless facilities to allow for

surrounding natural or built environment, to themaximum extent practicable.

E.) The proposed facility, to the greatest degreepracticable, shall have no unreasonable adverse impactupon districts, sites, buildings, structures or objects,significant in American history, architecture,archaeology, engineering or culture, that are listed, oreligible for listing, in the National Register of HistoricPlaces (see 16 U.S.C. 470w(5); 36 CFR 60 and 800).

7.2. Planning Board Approval Standards

An application for approval by the Planning Board underSection 5.1(B) must meet the following standards.

A.) Priority of Locations. New wirelesstelecommunications facilities must be located accordingto the priorities below. The applicant shall demonstratethat a facility of a higher priority cannot reasonablyaccommodate the applicant’s proposed facility.

1.) Colocation on an existing wirelesstelecommunications facility or other existingstructure in the following districts, as identified inthe [name of municipality] Zoning Ordinance:

2.) A new facility on public or private property inan Industrial District, or permitted as an IndustrialUse.

18

coverage of the residential area, taking local topography intoaccount.

The Siting on Municipal Property standard is intended toprotect the public interest in public property. The use of publicproperty must be carefully considered because the mandatoryuse of public property can violate federal antitrust laws. If amunicipality wants to simply encourage siting on publicproperty, options include free siting of municipal policeantennas, sources of income for schools, and marketing optionsfor teacher and municipal employees.

The municipality should establish standards for siting thesefacilities on public property. One example are the standardsused by the National Park Service, which requires that the sitingwill meet the policies of the department or agency. In thissituation, that may mean placement of a facility in a public parkis less appropriate than placement in a municipal industrial park.

The municipality may change the order of location priorities tosuit its own needs, but it must understand the risks, as well asthe opportunities, to locating these facilities exclusively onpublic property without due process, which could run counter tofederal antitrust laws.

If these standards are going to be incorporated into an existingzoning ordinance, the description of districts should correlate tothe districts listed in the existing ordinance.

3.) A new facility on public or private property in aCommercial District, or permitted as a CommercialUse.

4.) A new facility on public or private property in aRural District, or permitted as a Rural Use.

5.) A new facility on public or private property in aResidential District, or permitted as an ResidentialUse.

[OR]

A.) Location

New wireless telecommunications facilities may bepermitted only in the following districts as designated inthe [municipal] zoning ordinance:

[list districts here]

19

The Height standard should be considered carefully becauseheight restrictions can effectively exclude facilities, and thus theprovision of service, especially if there are restrictions on thelocation of facilities as well. In planning the acceptablelocations of facilities, the town needs to consider the interplaybetween height and coverage. Again, the taller the facility, thewider range of coverage. The stronger the facility, the morecolocation opportunities develop. The shorter the towers, thegreater number may be necessary for market coverage. TheAppendix provides more information on these planningconsiderations. The average freestanding monopole is 180-195feet tall.

An alternative height standard sets different height limits indifferent districts, which can help direct or concentrate largerfacilities to certain areas.

Limiting height to 195 feet eliminates the need in most cases forlighting and marking, as required by the FCC. The difference inheight between the two could mean an additional opportunity forcolocation. However, for scenic issues, towns could allow tallertowers in more desirable places, thus maximizing colocationpossibilities.

Setbacks protect abutting property owners from the unlikelyevent that the use will physically impact the property; and fromindirect impacts, such as obstruction of air or light. The intent isto protect abutting properties from the unlikely structural failureof the facility through wind loading, resulting in the structuretoppling over. Coupling setbacks with design and engineering

B.) Siting on Municipal Property. If an applicantproposes to locate a new wireless telecommunicationsfacility, or expand an existing facility on municipalproperty, the applicant must show the following:

1.) The proposed location complies with applicablemunicipal policies and ordinances.

2.) The proposed facility will not interfere with theintended purpose of the property.

3.) The applicant has adequate liability insuranceand a lease agreement with the municipality thatincludes reasonable compensation for the use of the

20

standards will ensure the safest structure possible isconstructed.

This ordinance allows the Planning Board to alter the setback,but establishes predictability that the setback will not be below abaseline threshold. Using an easement or other notice ofwaiver from the strict interpretation of the 105% setback helpsboth the municipality and applicant find sites that will have theleast visual impact. It is crucial that the municipality rememberthat without first identifying those key visual vistas and features,regulating these facilities based on their visual impacts isproblematic at best.

If adopted as a separate ordinance, care should be taken toproperly refer to the districts as designated in the zoningordinance.

The Landscaping standard is intended to protect the interestsof abutting land owners and the general public that will view thefacility.

The Fencing standard is intended to protect the facility and thepublic from harm by trespassers.

The Lighting standard is intended to minimize the off-siteimpacts of facility lighting while protecting the public. Optionsinclude: limiting the height and location of the facility to avoidthe requirement by the FAA that the facility be lighted, and thePlanning Board may wish to provide options in theSubmissions section as well. Remember, however, that thealternatives proposed may be preempted by the FAA.

property and other provisions to safeguard thepublic rights and interests in the property.

[IMPORTANT NOTE: The working group, made up ofindustry and municipal representatives, could not reachconsensus on the following subsection. Municipalitiesare strongly recommended to work with applicants indetermining effective and appropriate colocationdesign requirements during the pre-application, design,and Planning Board workshop phases.]

C.) Design for Colocation. A new wirelesstelecommunications facility and related equipment mustbe designed and constructed to accommodateexpansion for future colocation of at least threeadditional wireless telecommunications facilities orproviders. However, the Planning Board may waive ormodify this standard where the district height limitationeffectively prevents future colocation.

D.) Height. A new wireless telecommunicationsfacility must be no more than __ feet in height.

[OR]

D.) Height. A new wireless telecommunicationsfacilities must meet the following height standards, inthe following districts:

1.) In any Manufacturing or Industrial District themaximum height for a wireless telecommunicationsfacility shall be ___ feet.

21

The Color and Materials standard is intended to protect theinterest of the pubic that will view the facility. Somecommunities have required unlit facilities to be painted neutralor “dull” colors (gray, e.g.) to minimize their physical presence.

The Structural standard is intended to minimize the possibilityof collapse. In fact, when constructed to these standards, thereis little likelihood that these structures will topple over like a tree.Typically, as seen in Quebec this winter, they topple down uponthemselves. The goal of this standard is to minimize off-siteimpacts, while allowing reasonable use and repairs to occur,especially during emergencies. Rather than become structuralengineers, the Planning Board may simply seek to have anengineer certify that the structure meets these standards.

If a town wishes to address or regulate this use, or any otheruse with this kind of impact, then the municipal reviewers musthave relevant submission requirements, and defensible reviewstandards to define and assess that impact. The versionpresented here is one example; there are others.

Applicants, Planning Boards, and Planners must recognize thatvisual impacts are unavoidable, since these facilities (structuresand antennas) are technologically required to be at a certainheight and in certain locations to achieve minimal target areacoverage. Further, the higher PCS frequencies, what areknown as “line-of-sight” frequencies, do no bend aroundobstacles such as buildings, trees, etc., and therefore havemuch less flexible siting needs than traditional cellular andpager antennas, transmitters, etc.

2.) In any Rural District the maximum height for awireless telecommunications facility shall be ___feet, or sufficiently above tree line to minimizeinterference.

3.) In any Commercial District the maximum heightfor a wireless telecommunications facility shall be___ feet.

4.) In any Neighborhood Business/CommercialDistrict the maximum height for a wirelesstelecommunications facility shall be ___ feet.

5.) Residential District. In any Residential Districtthe maximum height for a wirelesstelecommunications facility shall be ___ feet.

E.) Setbacks. A new or expanded wirelesstelecommunications facility must comply with the setback requirements for the zoning district in which it islocated, or be set back one hundred five percent (105%)of its height from all property lines, whichever isgreater. The setback may be satisfied by including theareas outside the property boundaries if secured by aneasement. The following exemptions apply:

1.) In _______ districts, the setback may bereduced by the Planning Board upon a showing bythe applicant that the facility is designed to collapsein a manner that will not harm other property.

2.) An antenna is exempt from the setbackrequirement if it extends no more than five (5) feet

22

These Noise standards may be deleted, or if the municipalityhas an existing noise ordinance, this exemption should beincluded.

horizontally from the edge of the structure to whichit is attached, and it does not encroach upon anabutting property.

F.) Landscaping. A new wirelesstelecommunications facility and related equipment mustbe screened with plants from view by abuttingproperties, to the maximum extent practicable. Existingplants and natural land forms on the site shall also bepreserved to the maximum extent practicable.

G.) Fencing. A new wireless telecommunicationsfacility must be fenced to discourage trespass on thefacility and to discourage climbing on any structure bytrespassers.

H.) Lighting. A new wireless telecommunicationsfacility must be illuminated only as necessary to complywith FAA or other applicable state and federalrequirements. However, security lighting may be usedas long as it is shielded to be down-directional to retainlight within the boundaries of the site, to the maximumextent practicable.

I.) Color and Materials. A new wirelesstelecommunications facility must be constructed withmaterials and colors that match or blend with thesurrounding natural or built environment, to themaximum extent practicable. Unless otherwise

23

required, muted colors, earth tones, and subdued huesshall be used.

J.) Structural Standards. [Evidence that] Anew wireless telecommunications facility must complywith the current Electronic Industries Association/Telecommunications Industries Association (EIA/TIA)222 Revision Standard entitled "Structural Standards forSteel Antenna Towers and Antenna SupportingStructures."

K.) Visual Impact. The proposed wirelesstelecommunications facility will have no unreasonableadverse impact upon designated scenic resources withinthe Town, as identified either in the municipally adoptedcomprehensive plan, or by a State or federal agency.

1.) In determining the potential unreasonableadverse impact of the proposed facility upon thedesignated scenic resources, the Planning Board shallconsider the following factors:

a.) The extent to which the proposed wirelesstelecommunications facility is visible above treeline, from the viewpoint(s) of the impacteddesignated scenic resource;

b.) the type, number, height, and proximity ofexisting structures and features, and backgroundfeatures within the same line of sight as theproposed facility;

24

The Amendment section provides for the same review foramendments as original applications. As an alternative,municipalities may want to provide for a different procedure.

The Abandonment section authorizes the CEO to removeunused facilities at the owners expense. The town must decidehow much of the facility must be removed, and the depth towhich the original site must be restored. This requirement canbe made part of the lease agreement, and the applicant mustdemonstrate that there is sufficient bonding for this to occur. Itis strongly advised that a public hearing be held prior tothe revocation of the permit.

The reclamation should address the visual impacts as well. TheTown should decide whether pre-construction shall consider thearea below grade.

c.) the extent to which the proposed wirelesstelecommunications facility would be visible fromthe viewpoint(s);

d.) the amount of vegetative screening;

e.) the distance of the proposed facility fromthe viewpoint and the facility’s location withinthe designated scenic resource; and

f.) the presence of reasonable alternatives thatallow the facility to function consistently with itspurpose.

L.) Noise. During construction, repair, orreplacement, operation of a back-up power generator atany time during a power failure, and testing of a back-upgenerator between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. is exempt fromexisting municipal noise standards.

M.) Historic & Archaeological Properties. Theproposed facility, to the greatest degree practicable, willhave no unreasonable adverse impact upon a historicdistrict, site or structure which is currently listed on oreligible for listing on the National Register of HistoricPlaces.

7.3 Standard Conditions of Approval

The following standard conditions of approval shall be a part ofany approval or conditional approval issued by the CEO orPlanning Board. Where necessary to ensure that an approved

25

The Appeals section makes the Board of Appeals the finaldecision maker. For municipalities without a Zoning Board ofAppeals, the appeals by aggrieved parties must be made to theSuperior Court. For municipalities incorporating thesestandards into an existing zoning ordinance, this section couldbe deleted if already present in the ordinance.

The Administration and Enforcement section gives the CEObroad authority to prosecute violations of the ordinance.Alternatively, municipalities may require prior approval of someother municipal official(s) before certain enforcement actionsare taken. For municipalities incorporating these standards intoan existing zoning ordinance, this section could be deleted ifalready present in the ordinance.

These municipal officers may be the CEO or the Town or CityManager, depending upon the current administrativeresponsibilities.

project meets the criteria of this ordinance, the Planning Boardcan impose additional conditions of approval. Reference to theconditions of approval shall be clearly noted on the finalapproved site plan, and shall include:

1.) The owner of the wireless telecommunicationsfacility and his or her successors and assigns agreeto:

a.) respond in a timely, comprehensive mannerto a request for information from a potentialcolocation applicant, in exchange for areasonable fee not in excess of the actual cost ofpreparing a response;

b.) negotiate in good faith for shared use of thewireless telecommunications facility by thirdparties;

c.) allow shared use of the wirelesstelecommunications facility if an applicant agreesin writing to pay reasonable charges forcolocation.

d.) require no more than a reasonable chargefor shared use of the wirelesstelecommunications facility, based on communityrates and generally accepted accountingprinciples. This charge may include, but is notlimited to, a pro rata share of the cost of siteselection, planning project administration, landcosts, site design, construction and maintenance,financing, return on equity, depreciation, and all

26

of the costs of adapting the tower or equipmentto accommodate a shared user without causingelectromagnetic interference. The amortizationof the above costs by the facility owner shall beaccomplished at a reasonable rate, over the lifespan of the useful life of the wirelesstelecommunications facility.

2.) Upon request by the municipality, the applicantshall certify compliance with all applicable FCC radiofrequency emissions regulations.

Section 8. Amendment to an Approved Application

Any changes to an approved application must be approved bythe CEO or the Planning Board, in accordance with Section 5.

Section 9. Abandonment

A wireless telecommunications facility that is not operated for acontinuous period of twelve (12) months shall be consideredabandoned. The CEO shall notify the owner of an abandonedfacility in writing and order the removal of the facility withinninety (90) days of receipt of the written notice. The owner ofthe facility shall have thirty (30) days from the receipt of thenotice to demonstrate to the CEO that the facility has not beenabandoned. If the Owner fails to show that the facility is in active operation,the owner shall have sixty (60) days to remove the facility. Ifthe facility is not removed within this time period, the

27

If these provisions are incorporated into an existing zoningordinance, municipalities should make sure that the existingdefinition is amended to include towers.

municipality may remove the facility at the owner's expense.The owner of the facility shall pay all site reclamation costsdeemed necessary and reasonable to return the site to itspre-construction condition, including the removal of roads, andreestablishment of vegetation.

If a surety has been given to the municipality for removal of thefacility, the owner of the facility may apply to the PlanningBoard for release of the surety when the facility and relatedequipment are removed to the satisfaction of the PlanningBoard.

Section 10. Appeals

Any person aggrieved by a decision of the CEO or the PlanningBoard under this ordinance may appeal the decision to theBoard of Appeals, as provided by [section of Zoning or LandUse Ordinance]. Written notice of an appeal must be filedwith the Board of Appeals within thirty (30) days of thedecision. The notice of appeal shall clearly state the reasons forthe appeal.

Section 11. Administration and Enforcement

The CEO, as appointed through either the Zoning Ordinanceor by the Board of Selectmen or Town or City Council, shallenforce this ordinance. If the CEO finds that any provision ofthis ordinance has been violated, the CEO shall notify in writingthe person responsible for such violation, indicating the natureof the violation, and ordering the action necessary to correct it.The CEO shall order correction of the violation and may takeany other legal action to ensure compliance with this ordinance.

28

The [Municipal Officers], or their authorized agent, areauthorized to enter into administrative consent agreements forthe purpose of eliminating violations of this ordinance andrecovering fines without court action. Such agreements shallnot allow a violation of this ordinance to continue unless: there is clear and convincing evidence that the violationoccurred as a direct result of erroneous advice given by anauthorized municipal official upon which the applicantreasonably relied to its detriment and there is no evidence thatthe owner acted in bad faith; the removal of the violation willresult in a threat to public health and safety or substantialenvironmental damage.

Section 12. Penalties

Any person who owns or controls any building or propertythat violates this ordinance shall be fined in accordance withTitle 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4452. Each day such violation continuesafter notification by the CEO shall constitute a separateoffense.

Section 13. Conflict and Severability

13.1 Conflicts with other Ordinances

Whenever a provision of this ordinance conflicts with or isinconsistent with another provision of this ordinance or of anyother ordinance, regulation, or statute, the more restrictiveprovision shall apply.

13.2 Severability

29

The invalidity of any part of this ordinance shall not invalidateany other part of this ordinance.

Section 14. Definitions

The terms used in this ordinance shall have the followingmeanings:

"Antenna" means any system of poles, panels, rods, reflectingdiscs or similar devices used for the transmission or receptionof radio or electromagnetic frequency signals.

"Antenna Height" means the vertical distance measured fromthe base of the antenna support structure at grade to thehighest point of the structure, even if said highest point is anantenna. Measurement of tower height shall include antenna,base pad, and other appurtenances and shall be measured fromthe finished grade of the facility site. If the support structure ison a sloped grade, then the average between the highest andlowest grades shall be used in calculating the antenna height.

"Colocation" means the use of a wireless telecommunicationsfacility by more than one wireless telecommunicationsprovider. “Expansion” means the addition of antennas, towers, or otherdevices to an existing structure.

"FAA” means the Federal Aviation Administration, or its lawfulsuccessor.

"FCC” means the Federal Communications Commission , or itslawful successor.

30

Municipalities may wish to substitute the “Labor Market Area”for this definition.

"Height" means the vertical measurement from a point on theground at the mean finish grade adjoining the foundation ascalculated by averaging the highest and lowest finished gradearound the building or structure, to the highest point of thebuilding or structure. The highest point shall exclude farmbuilding components, flagpoles, chimneys, ventilators, skylights,domes, water towers, bell towers, church spires, processingtowers, tanks, bulkheads, or other building accessory featuresusually erected at a height greater than the main roofs ofbuildings.

"Historic or Archaeological Resources" means resources thatare:

1. Listed individually in the National Register of HistoricPlaces or eligible for listing on the National Register;

2. Certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary ofthe Interior as contributing to the historical significance of aregistered historic district or a district preliminarilydetermined by the Secretary of the Interior to qualify as aregistered historic district;

3. Individually listed on a state inventory of historic placesin states with historic preservation programs approved bythe Secretary of the Interior;

4. Individually listed on a local inventory of historic placesin communities with historic preservation programs thathave been certified by Secretary of the Interior through theMaine Historic Preservation Commission; or

31

5. Areas identified by a governmental agency such as theMaine Historic Preservation Commission as havingsignificant value as an historic or archaeological resourceand any areas identified in the municipality’s comprehensiveplan, which have been listed or are eligible to be listed onthe National Register of Historic Places.

"Historic District" means a geographically definable areapossessing a significant concentration, linkage or continuity ofsites, buildings, structures or objects united by past events oraesthetically by plan or physical development and identified inthe municipality’s comprehensive plan, which is listed or iseligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places.Such historic districts may also comprise individual elementsseparated geographically, but linked by association or history.

"Historic Landmark" means any improvement, building orstructure of particular historic or architectural significance tothe Town relating to its heritage, cultural, social, economic orpolitical history, or which exemplifies historic personages orimportant events in local, state or national history identified inthe municipality’s comprehensive plan, which have been listedor are eligible to be listed on the National Register of HistoricPlaces.

“Line of sight” means the direct view of the object from thedesignated scenic resource.

"Parabolic Antenna" (also known as a satellite dish antenna)means an antenna which is bowl-shaped, designed for thereception and or transmission of radio frequencycommunication signals in a specific directional pattern.

32

"Principal Use" means the use other than one which is whollyincidental or accessory to another use on the same premises.

“Public Recreational Facility” means a regionally or locallysignificant facility, as defined and identified either by Statestatute or in the municipality's adopted comprehensive plan,designed to serve the recreational needs of municipal propertyowners.

“Designated Scenic Resource” means that specific location,view, or corridor, as identified as a scenic resource in themunicipally adopted comprehensive plan or by a State orfederal agency, that consists of:

1.) a three dimensional area extending out from aparticular viewpoint on a public way or within a publicrecreational area, focusing on a single object, such as amountain, resulting in a narrow corridor, or a group ofobjects, such a downtown skyline or mountain range,resulting in a panoramic view corridor; or

2.) lateral terrain features such as valley sides or woodlandas observed to either side of the observer, constraining theview into a narrow or particular field, as seen from aviewpoint on a public way or within a public recreationalarea.

“Targeted Market Coverage Area” means the area which istargeted to be served by this proposed telecommunicationsfacility.

“Unreasonable Adverse Impact” means that the proposedproject would produce an end result which is:

33

1.) excessively out-of-character with the designated scenicresources affected, including existing buildings structuresand features within the designated scenic resource, and

2.) would significantly diminish the scenic value of thedesignated scenic resource.

“Viewpoint” means that location which is identified either inthe municipally adopted comprehensive plan or by a federal orState agency, and which serves as the basis for the location anddetermination of a particular designated scenic resource.

"Wireless Telecommunications Facility" or “Facility” means anystructure, antenna, tower, or other device which providesradio/television transmission, commercial mobile wirelessservices, unlicensed wireless services, cellular phone services,specialized mobile radio communications (SMR), commoncarrier wireless exchange phone services, specialized mobileradio communications (SMR), common carrier wirelessexchange access services, and personal communications service(PCS) or pager services.

Section 15. Effective Date

This ordinance becomes effective on_________________________.

34