UDC Text Amendment_Towers and AntennasPlanning Services Department
City Hall
50 West 13111 Street
Dubuque, IA 52001 -4864
(563) 589 -4210 phone
(563) 589 -4221 fax
(563) 690 -6678 TDD
planning@cityofdubuque.org
Dubuque
hitil
All-American
'111'
2012
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Dubuque
City Hall — 50 W. 13th Street
Dubuque IA 52001
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
May 7, 2013
Applicant: City of Dubuque
Description: Amend Section 7 -2 Towers and Antennas of the Unified Development
Code to establish timelines for review of applications.
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
The City of Dubuque Zoning Advisory Commission has reviewed the above -cited
request. The application, staff report and related materials are attached for your review.
Discussion
Planning Services Staff Member Kyle Kritz reviewed the proposed text amendment that
will establish timelines for review of complete applications for both new and modified
wireless telecommunication facilities. The changes were necessary as a result of a
Federal Communication Commission ruling.
There were no public comments.
The Zoning Advisory Commission discussed the request and felt it was appropriate.
Recommendation
By a vote of 5 to 0, the Zoning Advisory Commission recommends that the City Council
approve the request.
A simple majority vote is needed for the City Council to approve the request.
Respectfully submitted,
L fum im
Charles Miller, Chairperson
Zoning Advisory Commission
Service
People
Integrity
Responsibility
Innovation
Teamwork
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
❑Variance
❑Conditional Use Permit
❑Appeal
❑Special Exception
❑ Limited Setback Waiver
❑ Rezoning /PUD /ID
Dubuque
'111J'
2012
PLANNING APPLICATION FORM
❑Preliminary Plat
['Major Final Plat
❑Minor Final Plat
['Simple Site Plan
['Minor Site Plan
❑Major Site Plan
❑Simple Subdivision
®Text Amendment
❑Temporary Use Permit
❑Annexation
['Historic Revolving Loan
❑Historic Housing Grant
Please type or print legibly in ink
Property owner(s):
Address: City:
Fax #:
City of Dubuque
Planning Services Department
Dubuque, IA 52001 -4805
Phone: 563 -589 -4210
Fax: 563 -589 -4221
planningeo citvofdubuclue.orq
❑Certificate of Appropriateness
❑Advisory Design Review (Public Projects)
❑Certificate of Economic Non - Viability
❑Historic Designation
❑Demolition in Conservation Districts
OPort of Dubuque Design Review
Phone:
State: Zip:
Cell #: E -mail:
Applicant /Agent: City of Dubuque
Address: 50 W. 13th Street
Fax #: 563 -589 -4221
Site location /address: N/A
Phone: 5635894210
City: Dubuque State: IA Zip: 52001
Cell #: N/A E -mail: olanning@citvofdubuoue.org
Existing zoning: N/A Proposed zoning: N/A
Neighborhood Association: N/A
District: N/A Landmark: ❑ Yes ® No
Legal Description (Sidwell parcel ID# or lot number /block number /subdivision):
Total property (lot) area (square feet or acres):
Describe proposal and reason necessary (attach a letter of explanation, if needed):
Amend Section 7 -2 Towers and Antennas of the Unified Develo.ment Code to establish timelines for review and a..lications
CERTIFICATION: I /we, the undersigned, do hereby certify /acknowledge that:
1. It is the property owner's responsibility to locate property lines and to review the abstract for easements and restrictive
covenants.
2. The information submitted herein is true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and upon submittal becomes public
record;
3. Fees are not refundable and payment does not guarantee approval; and
4. All additional required written and graphic materials are attached.
Property Owner(s): Date:
Applicant /Agent:
Date:
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY — APPLICATION SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
Fee: Received by:
Date: 917./3 Docket:
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
TO: Zoning Advisory Commission
FROM: Kyle L. Kritz, Associate Planner 7
x.
Dubuque
All•IUnericaCilr
111'
2012
April 19, 2013
SUBJECT: Amendment to Section 7 -2 Towers and Antennas setting timelines for
review of applications for the installation of communication towers and
antennas.
INTRODUCTION
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has issued a ruling defining what is a
"reasonable period of time" for processing wireless communication applications. This
ruling was a result of the FCC finding that some local governments were delaying
deployment of wireless communication facilities through onerous processing
requirements. The proposed amendments to Section 7 -2 of the Unified Development
Code (UDC) are meant to address the FCC ruling.
DISCUSSION
The FCC ruling establishing "a reasonable period of time" to process wireless
applications addresses concerns raised by wireless telecommunications providers that
their applications are unreasonably held up by local processing requirements. The FCC
has determined that 90 days for co- location requests and 150 days for new applications
is sufficient for local jurisdictions to process such applications.
The UDC currently requires that new towers in all zoning districts, except for industrial
districts, receive a conditional use permit from the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Processing of a complete application typically takes approximately 30 days. A site plan
is also required to be submitted and typically requires less than 30 days to review and
approve. Planning staff does not anticipate any problem complying with the 150 days
allowed by the FCC ruling.
The second "shot clock" is for co- location requests. Typically, these requests involve
the addition or modification of antennas on existing host structures. A host structure
can be a tower, building or other structure such as a water tank. The UDC requires that
these co- location applications be reviewed as a simple site plan. A simple site plan
typically takes approximately 7 -10 days to process once a complete application is
submitted.
Memo to Zoning Advisory Commission
Page 2
Planning staff would note that when the City Council approved our first wireless
telecommunication ordinance in 1999, it was structured to provide incentive for existing
towers and other host structures to be utilized for new or modified antennas rather than
having a proliferation of single user sites. The incentive was built -in in terms of the very
quick processing times for co- location applications.
Planning and Legal staff reviewed the City's UDC and found the only changes
necessary to comply with the FCC ruling are those involving inclusion of the "shot
clocks" into the ordinance. Attached to this memorandum is information from a
conference presentation attended by the City's Legal staff last year in Washington D.C.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends that the Zoning Advisory Commission review the
information in this memorandum and recommend City Council approval of the proposed
amendments to Section 7 -2 Towers and Antennas, to establish timelines for review of
applications.
KLK/mkr
Attachments
cc: Barry A. Lindahl, City Attorney
Prepared by: Laura Carstens, City Planner Address: City Hall, 50 W. 13th St Telephone: 589 -4210
Return to: Kevin Firnstahl, City Clerk Address: City Hall- 50 W. 13th St Telephone: 589 -4121
ORDINANCE NO. 25 -13
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY OF DUBUQUE CODE OF ORDINANCES, TITLE
16 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 7 SUPPLEMENTAL USE
REGULATIONS, SECTION 7 -2.3 COMMUNICATION TOWER STANDARDS AND
SECTION 7 -2.4 ANTENNAS TO ADD TIMELINES FOR REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS
RELATED TO INSTALLATION OF COMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNAS.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DUBUQUE, IOWA:
Section 1. City of Dubuque Code of Ordinances Section 16 -7 -2.3 is hereby
amended to add the following provision:
16 -7 -2.3 Communication Tower Standards
G. Processing of Major Site Plans generally takes 10 -21 days depending
on the quality of the submitted site plan. Applicants shall be notified within
30 days of filing a site plan if the application is incomplete. If the City of
Dubuque has not approved, denied, or returned the application as
incomplete within 150 days, the application shall be deemed approved.
Section 2. City of Dubuque Code of Ordinances Section 16- 22.4(A) is hereby
amended to add the following provision:
16- 7- 2.4(A) Antennas
4. Processing of a Simple Site Plan generally takes 1 -5 days
depending on the quality of the submitted site plan. Applicants
shall be notified within 30 days of filing a site plan if the application
is incomplete. If the City of Dubuque has not approved, denied, or
returned the application as incomplete within 90 days, the
application shall be deemed approved.
16- 7- 2.4(H) Antennas Modification of existing facilities, including co- location,
removal and replacement of transmission equipment, that does not
substantially change the physical dimensions of the existing facility,
does not require submittal of a simple site plan. A building permit
may be required.
Section 3.This amendment has heretofore been reviewed by the Zoning Advisory
Commission.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication.
Passed, approved and adopted this 20th day of May, 2013.
fi
Roy D. Buo,Y/ Mayor
Attest:
Trish L. Gleason, CMC, Assistant City Clerk
CITY OF DUBUQUE,
1011VA
OFFICIAL NOTICE
PUBLIC NOTICE is
hereby given that the
Dubuque City Council
will conduct public
hearings at a meeting
to commence at 6 :30
p.m. on Ma 20, 2013,
in the Historic Federal
Building, 350 West 6th
Street, on the follow-
ing:
Rezoning
Request by Jon Kluck,
8005 Seippel Court, to
rezone existing CS
Commercial Service
and Wholesale District
with conditions to re-
duce the north side
setback from 50 feet to
20 feet.
Text Amendments
Request by Premier
Bank, 140 W 9th Street,
to amend Article 15-
11.10 to ! permit free-
standing signs along W
9th St between Iowa &
Main Street in a C-4
Downtown Commercial
Zoning District
Request by the City of
Dubuque to amend
Section 7 -2 Towers and
Antennas of the Unified
Development Code to
establish timelines for
review of applications.
Request by the City of
Dubuque to amend
Section 11 -7(0) Major
Subdivisions and Sec -
tion 11 -15(H) Streets of
the Unified Develop -
ment Code to require
that street names be
included on prelimina-
ry plats.
Request by the City of
Dubuque to amend
Section 6 -4 Flood 'Haz-
ard Overlay District of
the Unified Develop -
ment Code.
Copies of supporting
documents for the pub-
lic hearings are on file
in the City Clerk's Of-
fice and may be
viewed during normal
working hours.
Written comments re-
garding the above pub-
lic hearings may be
submitted to the City
Clerk's Office on or be-
fore said time of public
hearing. At said time
and place of public
hearings all interested
citizens and parties
will be given an oppor-
tunity to be heard for
or against said actions.
Any visual or hearing
impaired persons
needing special assis-
tance or persons with
special accessibility
needs should contact
the City Clerk's Office
at (563) 589 -4120 or
TTY (563) 690 -6678 at
least 48 hours prior to
the meeting.
Kevin S. Firnstahl,
CMC, City Clerk
5/10
STATE OF IOWA {SS:
DUBUQUE COUNTY
CERTIFICATION OF PUBLICATION
I, Suzanne Pike, a Billing Clerk for Woodward Communications, Inc., an Iowa
corporation, publisher of the Telegraph Herald,a newspaper of general circulation
published in the City of Dubuque, County of Dubuque and State of Iowa; hereby
certify that the attached notice was published in said newspaper on the following
dates: May 10, 2013, and for which the charge is $25.75.
Subscribed to before me a Notary Public in and for Dubuque County, Iowa,
this „./ day of , 20 .
Notary Public in and for Dubuque County, Iowa.
MARY K. W ESTiwFi,1...
Comm;s to 1
N
Connecting: America's Public Sector
to the National. Broadband Plan
Bac
less
7
The Fifth Circuit "Shot Clock" ecisien and the New Wireless
reegcm. lion Provision in the 2112 Payroll Tax Cut Legislation:
by
Tim Lay
2012 IMLA Mid -Year Seminar
Washington, DC
April 23, 2012
Section 332(c)(7)(A) protects local zoning:
o ... "nothing in [the Communications Act]" may "limit or affect" state or local authority with respect to
wireless siting, "except as provided" in Section 332(c)(7).
Section 332(c)(7)(B) imposes five limitations on local governments — they:
• may not "unreasonably discriminate" among providers of functionally equivalent services
(332 (c) (7) (B) (i) (I ))
o may not prohibit or effectively prohibit provision of PWS (332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II))
o must act on request within "reasonable period of time" (332(c)(7)(B)(ii))
o must make any denial decision "in writing," supported by "substantial evidence" (332(c)(7)(B)(iii))
W may not regulate RF — but may require applicant to satisfy FCC rules (332(c)(7)(B)(iv))
Provides (at (332(c)(7)(B)(v)) for court review on expedited basis of any violation of
§332(c)(7)(B), and for FCC action only where a locality denies a wireless application on the
basis of RF concerns; FCC otherwise not mentioned in (332(c)(7)(B)).
In 2008, wireless industry asked FCC to issue a ruling defining what
"reasonable period of time" and "prohibit provision of" PWS mean — and to
rule that if a locality failed to act within a specific period of time, the
application would be deemed granted. Industry claimed — .based on
unsubstantiated allegations — that local governments were delaying
deployment of wireless and broadband.
> Local governments argued that, except for RF issues, Congress intended
for localities and the courts to implement Section 332(c)(7)(B), and the FCC
had no authority to intrude on local zoning processes. Legis. history offers
strong support.
• FCC ruled, among other thongs:
o Local governments were delaying deployment; FCC action was needed.
• Based on other provisions of the Act, it did have authority to interpret and
implement any vague provisions of Section 332(c)(7).
o It could decide what sort of local zoning actions were "prohibitions."
• It could define what a "reasonable period" of time was.
• The FCC adopted nationwide presumptive "shot clocks" for a
"reasonable period of time" to process wireless applications.
o 90 days for collocation requests.
o 150 days for new siting applications.
® Time runs from a "complete application."
o But only if locality notifies the applicant within 30 days of filing that the
application is incomplete.
> The FCC declared that a State or local government that denies a
siting application for personal wireless service facilities solely
because "one or more carriers serve a given geographic market"
has engaged in unlawful regulation that "prohibits or ha[s] the effect
of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless. services." (Circuits
were split on this issue.)
But see T- Mobile v. Fairfax County Bd. of Supervisors, No. 11 -1060 (4th
Cir. filed March 1, 2012).
• NATOA asked the FCC to reconsider its decision and (among
other things) clarify what was meant by a "complete application."
• City of Arlington, Texas, filed an appeal of the decision in the
5th Circuit. San Antonio and others intervened.
• After significant delay, the FCC denied NATOA's reconsideration
petition. San Antonio appealed that to the 5th Circuit. NATOA and
other national organizations intervened in the San Antonio appeal.
"Shot clocks" were inconsistent with many state and local
laws governing zoning processes.
> "Shot clocks" created significant uncertainty as to how
localities might manage zoning processes that involve
multiple approvals — e.g., public hearing requirements,
admin. zoning appeals, FAA approvals, etc.
More importantly: if FCC has authority to implement
Section 332(c)(7), it could adopt still -more stringent rules
that could disrupt local zoning.
In the FCC's pending ROW NO/ proceeding, it applied the
same principle it used to construe Section 332(c)(7) (it can
define any vague language in the Communications Act) in
tentatively deciding it could define terms in Section 253,
which (among other things) permits localities to obtain "fair
and reasonable" compensation for use of rights- of -way
(ROW).
The FCC's "Shot Clock" decision therefore threatened to
make traditional local zoning and ROW compensation subject
to FCC regulation, with significant and adverse potential
budget implications for localities:
Direct — Loss of local government fee revenue.
Indirect — Increased risk of litigation and thus increased litigation
costs.
Arlington & San Antonio arguments included following:
Section 332(c)(7) itself gives FCC no authority over local zoning
(except as to RF). FCC implemented Section 332(c)(7) relying on
other provisions of Act. Because 332(c)(7) says "nothing" in the Act
outside of 332(c)(7) may limit or affect local authority, FCC could not
rely on those other provisions to limit or affect local zoning — FCC
lacks jurisdiction over local zoning.
The FCC's process was defective, failing to comply with either the
requirements that apply to rulemaking, or the requirements that
apply to adjudications. (Notably, under a normal adjudication, the
industry could not have relied on allegations regarding actions by
unnamed communities to support claims that localities were
delaying deployment.)
The resulting shot clocks were arbitrary, and inconsistent with
Section 332(c)(7)'s language and legislative history.
"Reasonableness" of local actions was to be assessed by
considering whether wireless applications were being
treated similarly to other non - wireless applications.
9
> San Antonio appeal dismissed on procedural grounds.
• Court said that while the filing of a reconsideration petition tolls
the deadline for filing an appeal for the entity that files for
reconsideration, if the recon is denied, the deadline is not tolled
for others — even entities (like San Antonio) that participate in
the recon proceeding.
San Antonio intervened in Arlington appeal, but court refused to
consider 2 San Antonio arguments — the "prohibition" & RegFlex
arguments -- that it decided were not raised by Arlington.
• Effect: may require localities to file protective appeals to
preserve rights to challenge FCC orders & to appeal rather than
intervene.
Court ruled: Scope of FCC jurisdiction under Section 332(c)(7)
was unclear and therefore deference was owed to agency's
interpretation of its own authority. Court acknowledged that this
ruling was inconsistent with Chevron "step zero" decisions of
some other circuits.
Court barely considered meaning of "nothing in this Act"
language — inaccurately suggesting Section 332(c)(7) was
"silent" as to scope of FCC's authority. Court largely ignored
legislative history.
While processes FCC followed were questionable, court saw no
harm that flowed from .FCC's failure to follow procedures (court
basically assumed no harm followed from industry's anonymous
and unsubstantiated allegations).
11
Court found shot clocks consistent with Congressional intent,
because shot clocks only create a "bubble- bursting"
presumption that locality has acted unreasonably; if locality
rebuts that presumption, the burden shifts to the wireless
provider to prove that the locality acted unreasonably.
The "bubble- bursting presumption" language may be helpful
in practice to local governments. May merely require that
locality show that there was some claimed basis for a delay
in acting (including a failure of an applicant to respond to
information requests, or what the locality's usual processing
time is).
But local governments still face litigation cost burden and
risk.
13
The decision, unless overturned, paves the way for
assertion of broad FCC authority over local zoning, right
of way management and right of way compensation.
Two rehearing petitions filed on March 8.
City of Arlington et al.
New Orleans City Council Communications Committee
Both argue (among other things) that the panel's
decision departs from prior 5th Cir. precedent construing
Chevron and federal preemption.
If rehearing is not granted, next and last option would be
to file a petition for certiorari to the
Supreme Court.
Congress enacted HR 3630, most publicized for extending
payroll tax deduction (signed into law by President on
2/22/2012).
Bill also allocates spectrum & $$ to public safety BUT
establishes a new wireless siting preemption rule that applies
notwithstanding Section 332(c)(7) or "any other provision of
law."
FCC is given authority to implement the new wireless siting
provision.
Sec. 6409. WIRELESS FACILITIES DEPLOYMENT.
(a) Facilities Modifications
(1) "IN GENERAL ....a State or local government may not deny, and shall
approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing
wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the
physical dimensions of such tower or base station."
(2) ELIGIBLE FACILITIES REQUEST. —For purposes of this subsection, the
term "eligible facilities request" means any request for modification of an
existing wireless tower or base station that involves —
(A) collocation of new transmission equipment;
(B) removal of transmission equipment; or
(C) replacement of transmission equipment.
(3) APPLICABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS. — Nothing in paragraph
(1) shall be construed to relieve the Commission from the requirements of
the National Historic Preservation Act or the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969.
15
(b) Federal easements and rights- of -way.-
(1) GRANT. —If an executive agency, a State, a political subdivision or agency of a State, or a person, firm, or organization applies for the
grant of an easement or right -of -way to, in, over, or on a building or other property owned by the Federal Government for the right to install,
construct, and maintain wireless service antenna structures and equipment and backhaul transmission equipment, the executive agency
having control of the building or other property may grant to the applicant, on behalf of the Federal Government, an easement or right -of-
way to perform such installation, construction, and maintenance.
(2) APPLICATION. —The Administrator of General Services shall develop a common form for applications for easements and rights -of- way...
(3) FEE. —
(A) IN GENERAL. — Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Administrator of General Services shall establish a fee for the
grant of an easement or right -of -way pursuant to paragraph (1) that is based on direct cost recovery.
(B) EXCEPTIONS. —The Administrator of General Services may establish exceptions to the fee amount required under
subparagraph (A)—
(i) in consideration of the public benefit provided by a grant of an easement or right -of -way; and
(ii) in the interest of expanding wireless and broadband coverage.
(4) USE OF FEES COLLECTED. —Any fee amounts collected by an executive agency... may be made available...to such agency to cover the
costs of granting the easement or right -of -way.
(c) Master contracts for wireless facility sitings.-
(1) IN GENERAL. — ...the Administrator of General Services shall —
(A) develop 1 or more master contracts that shall govern the placement of wireless service antenna structures on buildings and other
property owned by the Federal Government; and
(B) in developing the master contract or contracts, standardize the treatment of the placement of wireless service antenna structures on
building rooftops or facades, the placement of wireless service antenna equipment on rooftops or inside buildings, the technology used in
connection with wireless service antenna structures or equipment placed on Federal buildings and other property, and any other key issues
the Administrator of General Services considers appropriate.
(2) APPLICABILITY. —The master contract or contracts developed by the Administrator of General Services under paragraph (1) shall apply
to all publicly accessible buildings and other property owned by the Federal Government, unless the Administrator of General Services
decides that issues with respect to the siting of a wireless service antenna structure on a specific building or other property warrant
nonstandard treatment of such building or other property.
(3) APPLICATION. —The Administrator of General Services shall develop a common form or set of forms for
wireless service antenna structure siting applications...
Undefined terms
Maybe?
"Wireless tower"
FCC Programmatic Agreement: "Tower" is any
structure built for the sole or primary purpose
of supporting antennas and their associated
facilities used to provide FCC - licensed
services... A water tower, utility tower, or other
structure built primarily for a purpose other
than supporting FCC - licensed services is not a
"tower" for purposes of the Agreement, but is a
non -tower structure.
Undefined terms
Maybe?
"Collocation"
FCC Programmatic Agreement: Collocation
"means the mounting or installation of an
antenna on an existing tower, building or
structure for the purpose of transmitting and /or
receiving radio frequency signals for
communications purposes." Under the
Agreement, the term "collocation" includes
excavation and the placement of equipment
necessarily or reasonably associated with the
mounting or installation of an antenna.
What Does the New Zc
Preemption Mean'
Undefined terms
Maybe?
"Base station"
Part 90 (Private Land Mobile Radio Services)
defines as "A station at a specified site authorized
to communicate with mobile stations."
Part 22 (Public Mobile Services) defines "base
transmitter" as "A stationary transmitter that
provides radio telecommunications service to
mobile and /or fixed receivers, including those
associated with mobile stations."
19
Undefined terms
Maybe?
"substantially change the
physical dimensions"
3 If a change in any physical dimension created a
hazard to public safety (regardless of relative size)
would that be substantial ? A change that made an
area inaccessible to the disabled?
Weight or wind - loading changes?
Noise characteristics?
Changes that cause facility to intrude on, or
increase contaminant risk in, sensitive areas?
0 Changes that expose structures on a stealth
facility?
What about changes to grandfathered, non-
conforming use towers?
20
Undefined terms
Maybe?
"substantially
FCC Programmatic Agreement:
change the"
"Substantial increase in the size of the tower" means:
physical
1) The mounting of the proposed antenna on the tower would increase the existing
height of the tower by more than 10 %, or by the height of one additional antenna array
dimensions
with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet, whichever
is greater, except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size
limits set forth in this paragraph if necessary to avoid interference with existing
antennas; or
2) The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve the installation of more than
the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, not to
exceed four, or more than one new equipment shelter; or
3) The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve adding an appurtenance to
the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than twenty
feet, or more than the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance,
whichever is greater, except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed
the size limits set forth in this paragraph if necessary to shelter the antenna from
inclement weather or to connect the antenna to the tower via cable; or
4) The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve excavation outside the current
tower site, defined as the current boundaries of the leased or owned property
surrounding the tower and any access or utility easements currently related to the site.
Challenges to local ordinances that treat collocation and new towers
similarly.
• Challenges to collocation ordinances and local processes that allow
consideration of factors other than "physical dimension."
Challenges to, or preemption of, many local ordinances limiting changes to
non - conforming use towers.
> Refusals to fill . out forms that go beyond the "physical dimension" test, and
(from some) aggressive interpretations of what constitutes a "wireless
tower," "substantial change," "base station," etc.
Possible FCC declaratory actions /rulemakings (DAS industry ?).
• New, even shorter "shot clocks ", & "deemed granted" effect of local failure to
meet any new shot clock deadline. Possible "zero" shot clock (i.e., by FCC
fiat, no local application required) for certain modifications.
• What does "shall approve" mean? Are localities compelled to affirmatively
bless modifications falling within the provision?
• Possible damages /attorneys fees claims?
Tillman L. Lay.
L2t1[ JLJLfLJ
NicDTARLTA-7D
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
202.879.4022
tim.lay@spiegelmcd.com
vvww.spiegelmcd.com
23
OFFICIAL
PUBLICATION
ORDINANCE NO. 25-13
AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING CITY OF
DUBUQUE CODE OF
, ORDINANCES, TITLE
h16 UNIFIED DEVELOP-
MENT CODE, CHAP-
TER 7 SUPPLEMEN-
' TAL • USE. REGULA-
' TIONS, SECTION 7 -2.3
COMMUNICATION
TOWER STANDARDS
AND SECTION 7 =2A
ANTENNAS TO ADD
TIMELINES FOR RE
VIEW OF APPLICA
TIONS RELATED TO
INSTALLATION OF
COMMUNICATION
TOWERS AND AN-
TENNAS.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE
IT ORDAINED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE
I CITY OF DUBUQUE, 10-
WA;
Section 1. City of Du-
" buque Code of Ord-
;
nances Section 16 -7 -2.3
is hereby amended to
add the following pro-
vision:
16 -7 -2.3 Communica-
I tion Tower Standards
G. Processing of Ma-
jor Site Plans generally
;takes 10 -21 days de- 1
pending on the quality
of the submitted site
plan. Applicants shall
be notified within 30
days of filing a site
plan If the application
is Incomplete. If the
City of Dubuque has
not approved, denied,
or returned the appli-
cation as .Incomplete
within 150 clays, the
application shall be
deemed approved.
Section 2. City of Du-
buque Code of Ordi-
nances Section j.6-
22.4(A) is hereby,
amended to add the
following provision:
16- 7- 2.4(A) Antennas
4. Processing of a
Simple Site Plan gener-
ally takes 1-5 days de-
pending on the quality
of the submitted site
plan, Applicants shall
be notified within 30
days of filing a site
plan if the application _
is Incomplete. If the
City of Dubuque has
not approved denied,
or returned the appli-
cation as incomplete
within 90 days, the ap-
plication shall be
deemed approved.
16- 7- 2.4(H) Antennas
Modification of exist-
ing facilities, including
co- location, removal
and . replacement of
, transmission equip-
ment, that does not +.
substantially- change
the physical dimen-
sions of the existing fa-
cility, does not require
I submittal of a simple
site plan. A building
permit may be re,.
qulred.
Section 3. This amend-
ment has heretofore
been reviewed by the
Zoning Advisory Com-
mission.'
Section 4: This Ordi-
nance shall take effect
1; immediately upon pub-
lication.
I passed, approved and
adopted this 20th day
of May, 2013.
/s /Roy D. Buol, Mayor l
Attest: /s/Trish L.
STATE OF IOWA {SS:
DUBUQUE COUNTY
CERTIFICATION OF PUBLICATION
I, Suzanne Pike, a Billing Clerk for Woodward Communications, Inc., an Iowa
corporation, publisher of the Telegraph Herald,a newspaper of general circulation
published in the City of Dubuque, County of Dubuque and State of Iowa; hereby
certify that the attached notice was published in said newspaper on the following
dates: May 24, 2013, and for which the charge is $24.38.
Subscribed to before me, Notary Public in and for Dubuque County, Iowa,
this a/ L4 day of
,20/,3 .
17na-Ly
Notary Public in and for Dubuque County, Iowa.
afsC' {`� P MARY K. WEST•E 1Mi YER
• Commission "lumber 954o^v