My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/7/96 Agenda & Packet
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Parks, Recreation & Forestry Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
11/7/96 Agenda & Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/3/2024 2:14:58 PM
Creation date
6/15/2023 1:23:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Parks, Recreation & Forestry Commission
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
• From: "Pam Sheldon" <MOUNDS VIEW/PAMS> <br /> To: ChuckW, MikeU, MaryS, RickJ <br /> Date sent: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 12:36:06 +0000 <br /> Subject: Buildings for Telecommunications Companies <br /> Copies to: PamS, JimE <br /> The question has come up from one of the telecommunications companies <br /> about whether--if they go on our water tower--could they build <br /> accessory buildings in the park to house their equipment. I have <br /> talked with Bob Long about this, and reviewed our Zoning Code. Our <br /> conclusion is that they cannot without amending the Zoning Code. The <br /> park is in the PF district. It only allows <br /> - public buildings and uses <br /> - public parks, playgrounds, athletic fields, parking areas and <br /> golf courses <br /> - public sewers., water lines and water storage areas <br /> - public streets, easements and other public ways, highways and <br /> thoroughfares <br /> - treatment and pumping facilities and other public utility and <br /> public service facilities. <br /> The companies offering telecommunications services are not public or <br /> • even quasi-public (they are not regulated by the PUC) but are <br /> private. <br /> Therefore the Zoning Code would have to be amended to allow a private <br /> company to construct buildings to house their equipment. Bob Long <br /> suggested a conditional use permit process. It would be easy enough <br /> to write up. I have not asked Bob Long, however, whether the moratorium <br /> in effect at this time would preclude an ordinance amendment until the end <br /> of the moratorium. My guess is that we could put the ordinance on <br /> the books but could not use it until the overall ordinance is done. <br /> A grey area is whether they could put their "private" equipment <br /> in <br /> our existing "public" buildings if we could find enough space and <br /> rent to them. This may be a policy matter as well as a legal <br /> matter. <br /> Just wanted to let you know so that as you work with these companies, <br /> we don't run into an expected hangup where we have given them tower <br /> space but there is no place to put their equipment. We could not <br /> issue building permits for buildings on sites in our parks under the current Code. <br /> • <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.