The regulations of this article are intended
to conform with federal laws and administrative rules that govern
facilities needed to operate wireless communications systems and to
set forth procedures and standards for review and approval for the
location of such facilities within the Charter Township of Northville.
It is the Township's intent to reasonably regulate the location and
design of such facilities to retain the integrity of neighborhoods
and the character, property values and aesthetic quality of the Township.
Given the increase in the number of wireless communications facilities
requested as a result of the new technology and the Federal Telecommunications
Act of 1996, it is the policy of the Township that all users should
collocate on attached wireless communications facilities and wireless
communications support structures. Co-location is proposed in order
to assure the most economic use of land and to prevent the proliferation
of duplicative services. In recognition of the Township's concern
that technological advances may render certain wireless communications
facilities obsolete or unnecessary in the future, requirements are
set forth for the removal of unused or unnecessary facilities in a
timely manner and provide security for removal.
The following definitions shall apply in the
interpretation of this section:
Wireless communications facilities affixed to existing structures,
including, but not limited to, existing buildings, towers, water tanks,
or utility poles.
Location by two or more wireless communications providers
of wireless communications facilities on a common structure, tower
or building, to reduce the overall number of structures required to
support wireless communications antennas within the Township.
All structures and accessory facilities relating to the use
of the radio frequency spectrum for the purpose of transmitting or
receiving radio signals. This may include, but shall not be limited
to, radio towers, television towers, telephone devices, personal communications
transmission equipment and exchanges, microwave relay towers, telephone
transmission equipment building and commercial mobile radio service
facilities. This definition does not include a reception antenna for
an individual lot as otherwise defined and regulated in this chapter.
Structures erected or modified to support wireless communications
antennas. Support structures within this definition include, but shall
not be limited to, monopoles, lattice towers, light poles, wood poles
and guyed towers, or other structures which appear to be something
other than a mere support structure.
Wireless communications facilities may be located
within the Township in accordance with the following table:
|
Type/Location of Wireless Communications
Facility
|
Districts Permitted
|
Approval Procedure
|
|---|---|---|
|
Attached to existing structures:
| ||
|
Attached to an existing conforming structure
that will not be materially altered or changed in appearance
|
All non-single-family residential districts
|
Administrative sketch plan review by the Building
and Planning Departments
|
|
Attached to an existing utility pole within
a public right-of-way that will not be modified or materially altered
and not impair sight lines or compromise safety
|
All districts
|
Administrative sketch plan review by the Building
and Planning Departments, provided letter of acceptance is provided
by the utility company
|
|
Co-location upon an attached wireless communications
facility previously approved for such co-location
|
All districts
|
Administrative sketch plan review by the Building
and Planning Department
|
|
Located on a municipally owned site:
| ||
|
Attached to an existing structure or monopole
up to 100' in height1
|
All districts
|
Administrative sketch plan review by the Building
and Planning Department
|
|
Monopole 101' to 150' in height1
|
All districts
|
Site plan review by the Planning Commission
|
|
Located on a site owned by another governmental
entity, religious institution or public school:
| ||
|
Monopole up to 80' in height1
|
All districts
|
Site plan review by the Planning Commission.
|
|
Monopole 81' to 100' in height1
|
All districts
|
Special land use and site plan review by the
Planning Commission
|
|
New facility not addressed above:
| ||
|
Monopole up to 120' tall1
|
OS and B-3 Districts
|
Special land use and site plan review by the
Planning Commission
|
|
CR, ORT, I-1 and CI Districts
|
Permitted use, site plan approval by the Planning
Commission
| |
|
Monopole 120' to 150' tall1
|
CR, ORT, I-1 and CI Districts
|
Special land use and site plan review by the
Planning Commission
|
|
Monopole or lattice tower 150' to 200' tall1
|
I-1 and CI Districts
|
Special land use and site plan review by the
Planning Commission
|
|
NOTES:
| |
|---|---|
|
1
|
Height may be increased 10 feet where determined
necessary to provide future co-location.
|
For situations requiring sketch plan review,
the following information shall be provided:
A.
Signed certification by a professional engineer licensed
by the State of Michigan with regard to the manner in which the proposed
structure will fall in the event of damage, accident or injury, i.e.,
fall line, and that the setback area provided shall accommodate the
structure should it fall or break and provide a reasonable buffer
in the event the structure fails.
B.
A description of the performance guarantee to be posted
at the time of receiving a building permit for the facility to ensure
removal of the facility when it is abandoned or is no longer needed.
The applicant shall demonstrate that funds will be available to the
Township for removal of any structure used for wireless communications
in an amount which reasonably reflects the cost of removing the facility
and restoration of the property or structure upon which the facility
is located. Adequate funds shall also be provided to cover the Township's
administrative costs in the event that the applicant or its successor
does not remove the wireless communications facility in a timely manner.
The security shall, at the election of the Township Board, be in the
form of cash, security bond, letter of credit or an agreement in a
form approved by the Township Attorney and recordable at the Wayne
County Register of Deeds. The security shall establish a commitment
by the applicant, owner of the property, or their successors, to remove
the facility in a timely manner as required by this article. It shall
further be provided that the applicant, owner or successor shall be
responsible for payment of any costs or attorney fees incurred by
the Township in securing removal.
C.
A map that illustrates existing and known proposed
wireless communications facilities within Northville Township and
adjacent communities to determine potential co-location or to demonstrate
the need for the proposed facility. Any such information that is a
trade secret and/or other confidential commercial information which,
if released, would result in commercial disadvantage to the applicant
may be submitted with a request for confidentiality in connection
with the development of governmental policy [MCLA § 15.243(1)(g)].
This chapter shall serve as the promise to maintain confidentiality
to the extent permitted by law. The request for confidentiality must
be prominently stated in order to bring it to the attention of the
community.
D.
In recognition of the Township's policy to promote
co-location, a written agreement, transferable to all successors and
assigns, that the operator shall make space available on the facility
for co-location.
E.
The name, address and phone number of the person to
contact for engineering, maintenance and other notice purposes. This
information shall be continuously updated during all times the facility
is on the premises.
In addition to the criteria of site plan review listed in Article 33, Site Plan Review, all wireless communications facilities shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the following standards:
A.
Facilities shall be located and designed to be harmonious
with the surrounding area. The Planning Commission may require design
of the structure to either diminish the visual impact or to create
an architectural feature that will contribute to or enhance community
character.
B.
A permit for the construction and use of a new wireless
communications facility shall not be granted until the applicant demonstrates
a feasible co-location is not available for the coverage area and
capacity needs.
C.
All new and modified wireless communications facilities
shall be designed and constructed to accommodate co-location, with
a written agreement in a format approved by the Township Attorney.
D.
Landscaping shall be provided to screen the base of
the structure, accessory buildings and enclosure from adjacent uses
and public rights-of-way.
E.
Elevations of the accessory buildings shall be provided.
In residential and commercial districts, all accessory buildings shall
be constructed of brick.
F.
Fencing shall be provided for protection of the support
structure and security from children and other persons who may otherwise
access the facilities.
G.
Any nonconforming situations existing on the site,
such as outdoor storage, signs, inadequate landscaping, unpaved parking,
lack of a sidewalk/pathway, lighting that does not meet current standards
or similar conditions shall be brought into conformance prior to the
erection of the wireless communications facility. If existing buildings
or structures are not in conformance with the current Township standards,
improvements shall be made to decrease the nonconformity or additional
landscaping shall be provided to reduce the impact of the nonconformity
and the wireless facility.
H.
The operator shall comply with applicable federal
and state standards relative to the environmental effects of radio
frequency emissions.
I.
The applicant shall demonstrate that the requested
height of the new or modified support structure and antenna shall
be the minimum height necessary for reasonable communications by the
applicant, including additional height to accommodate future co-location
where appropriate.
J.
Minimum required setbacks for new facilities or support
structures:
(1)
From any residential district: the height of the structure, plus 25 feet, provided the engineering information required in § 170-29.4A is provided. The person or body with authority to approve the facility may decrease this setback to that provided in Subsection J(3) below upon a finding that no residential use exists or is expected on the adjacent site.
K.
Accessory buildings shall be a maximum of 14 feet
high and shall be set back in accordance with the requirements for
principal buildings in that zoning district.
L.
There shall be unobstructed access to the support
structure for operation, maintenance, repair and inspection purposes,
which may be provided through or over an easement. This access shall
have a width and location determined by such factors as the location
of adjacent thoroughfares and traffic and circulation within the site;
utilities needed to service the tower and any attendant facilities;
the location of buildings and parking facilities; proximity to residential
districts and minimizing disturbance to the natural landscape; and
the type of equipment which will need to access the site.
M.
Where an attached wireless communications facility
is proposed on the roof of a building, and if the equipment enclosure
is proposed as a roof appliance or penthouse on the building, it shall
be designed, constructed and maintained to be architecturally compatible
with the principal building. The equipment enclosure may be located
within the principal building or may be an accessory building. If
proposed as an accessory building, it shall conform with all district
standards for the principal building, including setbacks.
N.
The support system shall be constructed in accordance
with all applicable building codes and shall include the submission
of a soil report from a geotechnical engineer licensed in the State
of Michigan. This soil report shall include soil borings and statements
confirming the suitability of soil conditions for the proposed use.
The requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications
Commission and the Michigan Aeronautics Commission shall be noted.
O.
A maintenance plan, and any applicable maintenance
agreement, shall be presented and approved as part of the plan for
the proposed facility. Such plan shall be designed to ensure the long-term,
continuous maintenance to a reasonably prudent standard.
As a condition of every wireless communications
facility approval, adequate provision shall be made for the removal
of all, or part, of the facility by users and owners upon the occurrence
of one or more of the following events:
A.
When the facility has not been used for 180 days or
more, the removal of antennas or other equipment from the facility
or the cessation of operations (transmission and/or reception of radio
signals) shall be considered as the beginning of a period of nonuse.
B.
Six months after new technology is available, at reasonable
cost as determined by the Township Board, which permits the operation
of the communications system without the requirement of the support
structures.
C.
The situations in which removal of a facility is required, as set forth in Subsection A above, may be applied and limited to portions of a facility.
D.
Upon the occurrence of one or more of the events requiring
removal, specified in the subsections above, the property owner or
persons who had used the facility shall immediately apply or secure
the application for any required demolition or removal permits and
immediately proceed with and complete the demolition/removal and restoration
of the premises to an acceptable condition, as determined by the Planning
Department.
E.
If the required removal of a facility, or a portion
thereof, has not been lawfully completed within 60 days of the applicable
deadline, and after at least 30 days' written notice, the Township
may remove or secure the removal of the facility, or required portions
thereof, and the actual cost and reasonable administrative charge
shall be drawn from, collected and/or enforced from or under the security
posted at the time application was made for establishing the facility.
A.
It is the policy of the Charter Township of Northville
to minimize the overall number of newly established locations for
wireless communications facilities and wireless communications support
structures within the Township and to encourage the use of existing
structures for attached wireless communications facilities. Co-location
shall be required unless an applicant demonstrates that co-location
is not feasible.
B.
Co-location shall be deemed feasible where all of
the following conditions are met:
(1)
The wireless communications provider or property
owner where co-location is proposed will accept market rent or other
market compensation for co-location, and the wireless communications
provider seeking the facility will pay such rates.
(2)
The site on which co-location is being considered,
taking into consideration reasonable modification or replacement of
a facility, is able to provide structural support.
(3)
The co-location being considered is technically
reasonable, e.g., the co-location will not result in unreasonable
interference, given appropriate physical and other adjustments in
relation to the structure, antennas and the like.
If a party who owns or otherwise controls a
wireless communications facility fails or refuses to alter a structure
to accommodate a proposed and otherwise feasible co-location, 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. In addition, if a party refuses to allow co-location
in accordance with the intent of this article and this action results
in construction of a new tower, the Township may refuse to approve
a new wireless communications support structure from the party for
a period of up to five years. Such a party may seek and obtain a variance
from the Zoning Board of Appeals if and to the limited extent the
applicant demonstrates entitlement to variance relief. Relief shall
mean a demonstration that enforcement of the five-year prohibition
would unreasonably discriminate against the providers of functionally
equivalent wireless communications services or that such enforcement
would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless
communications services.
