AG 2004 06 15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4) On propertaes ~n areas zoned for Heavy Industrial use 5) On properties an 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 hagher priority was not selected. The person seeking such an exceptaon 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 Applacant if the permit were not granted for the proposed sate. C) An Applacant may not by-pass sites of higher praority by stating the site proposed is the only site leased or selected. An Application shall address co-location as an optaon. If such option is not proposed, the applicant must explaan to the reasonable satisfaction of the County why co-locataon as Commercially or otherwise Impracticable. Agreements between providers limltang or prohibiting co-locataon shall not be a valad basis for any claim of Commercial Impracticability or hardship. D) Notwathstanding the above, the County may approve any sate located withan an area in the above list of prior/ties, provided that ~he County lands that the proposed site is in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of the County and its ir~habitants 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, demonstratang the technological reason for the site selection. If appropriate, based on selecting a site of lower priority, a detailed wratten explanation as to why sites of a hagher priority were not selected shall be included with the Application. F) Notwathstanding that a potential site may be situated in an area of haghest praority or highest available priority, the County may dasapprove an Application for any of the following reasons. 1) Conflact wath safety and safety-related codes and requirements; 2) Conflict wath the hastoric nature or character of a neaghborhood or historical distract, 3) The use or constructaon of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities whmch as contrary to an already stated purpose of a specific zonang or land use designation; 4) The placement and location of Wireless Telecommunications Fatalities which would create an unacceptable risk, or the reasonable probability of such, to residents, the publac, employees and agents of the County, or employees of the service provider or other service providers; 5) Conflicts with the provisions of thas 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 exlsting Towers or others structures without increasing the height. The Applicant shall submit a comprehensive report anventorying extstang 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 dastance is more reasonable and demonstrate conclusavely 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 existang owner to permit ars use by the Applacant. C) Such shared use shall consist only of the minimum Antenna array technologically required to provide service primarily and essentially w/thin the County, to the extent practicable, unless good cause ls shown. Sectaon 9. Height of Telecommunications Tower(s). A) The Applicant ~hall 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