Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Ordinance to Public Hearing 23 <br />November 24, 2003 ~ ~'~ g <br />is eJ <br />such option is not proposed, the applicant must explain to <br />the reasonable satisfaction of the County why co-location is <br />commercially or otherwise impracticable. Agreements <br />between providers limiting or prohibiting co-location shall not <br />be a valid basis for any claim of commercial impracticability <br />or hardship. <br />e) Notwithstanding the above, the County may approve any site <br />not located within an area in the above list of priorities, <br />provided that the County finds that the proposed site is in the <br />best interest of the health, safety and welfare of the County <br />and its inhabitants and will not have a deleterious effect on <br />the nature and character of the community and <br />neighborhood. <br />f) The Applicant shall submit a written report demonstrating the <br />Applicant's review of the above location in order of priority, <br />demonstrating the technological reason for the site selection. <br />g) Notwithstanding that a potential site may be situated in an <br />area of highest priority or highest available priority, the <br />County may disapprove an application for any of the <br />following reasons: <br />1. Conflict with safety and safety-related codes and <br />requirements; <br />2. Conflict with the historic nature and character of a <br />historic property; <br />3. The use or construction of Telecommunication Facilities <br />which is contrary to an already stated purpose of a <br />specific zoning or land use designation; <br />4. The placement and location of Telecommunications <br />Facilities which would create an unacceptable risk, or <br />the reasonable probability of such, to residents, the <br />public, employees and agents of the County or any <br />other public entity or employees of the service provider <br />or other service providers; <br />5. Conflicts with the provisions and requirements of this <br />Ordinance. <br />h) Within or adjacent to residential zoning districts, minimum <br />setbacks from the base of the tower to the property boundary shall <br />be equal to 110% of the tower height. If the tower is proposed as <br />an accessory use to a residential use, the tower setback shall be <br />110% of the tower height from any residence or dwelling unit on <br />the subject property. <br />i) Adjacent to non-residential uses or non-residential zoning districts, <br />minimum setbacks from the base of the tower to the property <br />boundary shall be the greater Gf 20°/u of the tower height, or the <br />minimum required setback. <br />G/curplanninFJRobert/telcotowersroundtwo/telcomm towers amendmenLS Sec 6 sec 8 <br />