Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> + � Page 3 of 3 �, <br /> SpectraSite Communications, Inc. , <br /> Apri14, 2002 <br /> 8. Staff is also concerned about the encroachment of the fall zone of the proposed structure on <br /> adjacent facilities. Absent proof that the owners of the adjacent facilities do not object to the <br /> tower location, staff cannot support the PUD amendment. <br /> 9. Based on the above, staff recommends denial of the petition as presented. <br /> PLAN COMMISSION ACTION <br /> 1. Section XXVII. A. requires the Plan Commission to hold a public hearing on Planned Unit <br /> Developments/Special Use Permits requests, and make a recommendation to the City <br /> Council. A motion to deny the requested amendment to the Planned Unit Development and <br /> the Special Use Permit is recommended. <br /> The above report constitutes the testimony and recommendation of the Planning Division, <br /> Economic and Urban Development Department, City of Decatur. <br /> Hala Ahmed, AICP <br /> Environmental Specialist <br /> ATTACHMENTS <br /> 1. Location Maps. � <br /> 2. Petition. <br /> 3. Site Drawings. <br /> *: "Update on the 1996 Telecommunication Act: Personal Wireless Services." Stanley K. <br /> Abrams,April 1998. Land Use Law and Zoning Digest. <br />