11/13/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t Mr . Lepore concluded that the signage regulations are much the same as the existing regulations . Regarding obstructive to aircraft objects , they have adopted the FAA suggested guidelines . The ordinance , as proposed , would require the applicant to show that they have considered other alternatives . Also , when the application comes to the Board , there will be an independent review by a third party . Commissioner Adams suggested a change to a linear measurement and Mr . Lepore noted that the application will contain information to let the Board know whether or not there is commercial development, within what distance , and the general commercial topography of the neighborhood . Mr . Lepore again stated that the Board is not required to approve sites everywhere they are desired, they just cannot discriminate or prohibit the towers . Regarding Section 6 , Expert Review , Chairman Ginn asked that the language . . . " Planning Director may require " be changed to " shall require " . She also questioned having the applicant pay for the review . Mr . Lepore noted that the County should pay for the review because of the relationship . Some other counties collect a fee for the review when the application is received . Director Keating also mentioned that the reviewer might need to be someone who s does not work for the industry . Abandonment and remedies were then discussed , and Commissioner Adams asked for the addition of SubSection (d), Section 7 , notifying the applicant that failure to reactivate or remove the wireless communications facility may result in Code Enforcement action by the County, with a specific definition of " failure " . County Attorney Paul Bangel commented that another county had required a license agreement for each applicant, authorizing the county to enter private property in the event of abandonment and, if necessary , remove the facility . NOVEMBER 13 , 2001 _ 6 _ i a nr fie./jjs ?va 5