My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
AG 2004 05 17
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Agendas
>
BOC
>
2004
>
AG 2004 05 17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/9/2006 9:19:36 PM
Creation date
11/27/2017 11:37:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Agenda
Meeting Minutes - Date
5/17/2004
Board
Board of Commissioners
Meeting Type
Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
298
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes <br />March 18, 2004 <br /> <br />Paqe 26 <br /> <br />changes from the one that was sent out. He said one is on page <br />six - they are going to do a visual impact assessment. On page <br />nine - priorities of the location. They have set seven priorities - 1) <br />on the existing Towers; 2) on County-owned properties; 3) on <br />other publicly owned property, such as a school or possibly City <br />_property; 4) on properties in areas zoned for Heavy Industrial use, <br />he said this is where he has to make a change. It says Heavy <br />Industrial use it should say Industrial use; $) on properties in areas <br />zoned for Commercial use; 6) on properties in areas zoned for <br />Agricultural use; and 7) on properties in areas zoned for Residential <br />use, <br /> <br />Mr. Lancaster said he is curious, why does he recommend that it be <br />located on a County owned or City property. <br /> <br />Mr. Lentz said in the consultant's experience that was something <br />that they could do. What it does is if the County owns property <br />that the County wants to make available for a tower it is income for <br />the County so we would get that land if they chose to put that <br />tower there on that location. <br /> <br />Mr. Lancaster said that is his whole point. That puts us in <br />competition with a private business owner that might could sell <br />apiece of property to the tower. He said he does not agree with <br />that. <br /> <br />Mr. Lentz said once you put the tower there as a government unit <br />you could probably save the taxpayers money if you could get that <br />tower on county owned property. He said something like the <br />schools when they have their intent for their buses for their radios, <br />if they can put them on existing tower and it is on county property <br />we do not have to pay rent so we are saving the taxpayers mon. ey. <br /> <br />Mr. Lancaster said to Mr. Lentz that he did not say that at first. <br /> <br />Mr. Smith said to Mr. Lentz this goes back to that meeting in <br />October or November. When you says towers we are not <br />necessarily talking about some joint super structure or intent. He <br />said a tower could be like a little dish on the side of a pole. He <br />asked if that was correct. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.