BC 2004 05 17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

17, 2004 Page 45? 4) On properties in areas zoned for Heavy Industrial use 5) On properties in areas zoned for Commercial use 6) On properties in areas zoned for Agricultural use 7) On properties in areas zoned for Residential use B) If the proposed site is not proposed for the highest priority listed above, then a detailed explanation must be provided as to why a site of a higher priority was not selected. The person seeking such an exception must satisfactorily demonstrate the reason or reasons why such a permit should be granted for the proposed site, and the hardship that would be incurred by the Applicant if the permit were not granted for the proposed site. C) An Applicant may not by-pass sites of higher priority by stating the site proposed is the only site leased or selected. An Application shall address co-location as an option. If such option is not proposed, the applicant must explain to the reasonable satisfaction of the County why co-location is Commercially or otherwise Impracticable. Agreements between providers limiting or prohibiting co-location shall not be a valid basis for any claim of Commercial Impracticability or hardship. D) Notwithstanding the above, the County may approve any site located within an area in the above list of priorities, provided that the County finds that the proposed site is in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of the County and its inhabitants and will not have a deleterious effect on the nature and character of the community and neighborhood. E) The Applicant shall submit a written report demonstrating the Applicant's review of the above locations in order of priority, demonstrating the technological reason for the site selection. If appropriate, based on selecting a site of lower priority, a detailed written explanation as to why sites of a higher priority were not selected shall be included with the Application. F) Notwithstanding that a potential site may be situated in an area of highest priority or highest available priority, the County may disapprove an Application for any of the following reasons. 1) Conflict with safety and safety-related codes and requirements; 2) Conflict with the historic nature or character of a neighborhood or historical district; 3) The use or construction of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities which is contrary to an already stated purpose of a specific zoning or land use designation; 4) The placement and location of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities which would create an unacceptable risk, or the reasonable probability of such, to residents, the public, employees and agents of the County, or employees of the service provider or other service providers; 5) Conflicts with the provisions of this Ordinance. Section 8. Shared use of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities and other structures. A) The County, as opposed to the construction of a new Tower, shall prefer locating on existing Towers or others structures without increasing the height. The Applicant shall submit a comprehensive report inventorying existing Towers and other suitable structures within four (4) miles of the location of any proposed new Tower, unless the Applicant can show that some other distance is more reasonable and demonstrate conclusively why an exiting (sic) Tower or other suitable structure can not be used. B) An Applicant intending to locate on an existing Tower or other suitable structure shall be required to document the intent of the existing owner to permit its use by the Applicant. C) Such shared use shall consist only of the minimum Antenna array technologically required to provide service primarily and essentially within the County, to the extent practicable, unless good cause is shown. Section 9. Height of Telecommunications Tower(s). A) The Applicant shall submit documentation justifying the total height of any Tower, Facility and/or Antenna and the basis therefore. Such documentation will be analyzed in the context of the justification of