communication facility existing on or before the effective date of these
guidelines, RURA shall take appropriate action pursuant to the terms of these
guidelines.
4.2 Site sharing for communication facilities
4.2.1 Siting alternatives hierarchy
Development of a facility use shall be in accordance with the following siting
alternatives hierarchy. The order of ranking from highest to lowest shall be
4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.2, 4.2.1.3. Where a lower ranked alternative is proposed, the
applicant must demonstrate by substantial evidence that higher ranked options
are not technically feasible or available.
4.2.1.1 Co-location on existing communication tower
4.2.1.2 Co-location on existing building/ other structure
4.2.1.3 Development of new communication tower
4.2.2 Co-location requirements
4.2.2.1 Placement of antennas on existing towers or other structures shall be
preferred as opposed to the construction of a new tower. An application for
administrative review to co-locate on an existing wireless communication
facility or other structure shall contain proof of the intent of the existing
owner to permit the applicant’s use.
4.2.2.2 Certification from a licensed engineer that certifies that the structure
can support the additional load due to the co-location of facilities.
4.2.3 Co-location guidelines
4.2.3.1 Wherever feasible, the facility owner shall provide for future colocation on the facility by other service provider and for public purposes or
demonstrate by substantial evidence that it is not feasible.
4.2.3.2 The design, construction and installation of towers over 30 meters shall
be done in such a way as to accommodate a minimum of three service
providers. Towers whose height is between 18m and 30m will accommodate at
least 2 service providers. The power rating of grid access, as well as the power
rating of (backup) generator shall be dimensioned to accommodate (or allow
for easy upgrade to accommodate) a minimum of three service providers.
10