Page 103 - Ordinance Chapter 17

(d) The applicant's equipment would cause electromagnetic interference with
equipment on the existing tower(s) within the area in which the applicant's
equipment must be located, or the equipment on the existing tower(s) would cause
interference with the applicant's equipment and the interference, from whatever
source, cannot be eliminated at a reasonable cost;

(e) The fees, costs or contractual provisions required by an owner in order to co-
locate on an existing tower or structure are unreasonable relative to industry
norms; or

(f) The applicant demonstrates that there are other factors that render existing towers
or structures unsuitable or unavailable and establishes that the public interest is
best served by the placement and construction of the new communication tower.

(2) An alternative site, as required to be analyzed under Section 17.75(4) is not reasonably
available to place the proposed tower.

(3) The absolute need for the particular height of the proposed tower. Any proposal for a
tower by an applicant to build a tower on speculation and seek tenants among
telecommunication carriers shall include documentation of the commitments made by
those carriers to co-locate at what particular height and the absolute need for such height.

(4) The proposed tower is camouflaged to the greatest extent possible in that the tower is
designed to include, where appropriate, the use of compatible building materials and
colors, screening, landscaping and placement within trees.

(5) The proposed tower shall accommodate other users in that any proposed tower shall be
designed, structurally, electrically and in all respects to accommodate co-location of both
the applicant's antenna(s) and comparable antenna(s) for at least two (2) additional users.
Towers shall be designed to allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower,
to accept antennas mounted at varying heights, and to accommodate supporting buildings
and equipment.

17.78 TECHNICAL REVIEW.

In the event the Plan Commission determines that it is necessary to consult with a third party in
considering a permit, all reasonable costs and expenses associated with such consultation shall be
borne by the applicant. Failure to pay such costs and expenses or provide information requested
by the Plan Commission shall be grounds for denial or revocation of a conditional use permit.
The applicant may provide to the Plan Commission the names of consultants which the applicant
believes are qualified to assist in resolving the issues before the Plan Commission.

103