The general rule is that the disconnect must be within sight of the motor. See 430.120
"(B) Motor. A disconnecting means shall be located in sight from the motor location and the driven machinery location. The disconnecting means required in accordance with 430.102(A) shall be permitted to serve as the disconnecting means for the motor if it is located in sight from the motor location and the driven machinery location.
Exception: The disconnecting means shall not be required to be in sight from the motor and the driven machinery location under either condition (a) or (b), provided the disconnecting means required in accordance with 430.102(A) is individually capable of being locked in the open position. The provision for locking or adding a lock to the disconnecting means shall be permanently installed on or at the switch or circuit breaker used as the disconnecting means.
(a) Where such a location of the disconnecting means is impracticable or introduces additional or increased hazards to persons or property
(b) In industrial installations, with written safety procedures, where conditions of maintenance and supervision ensure that only qualified persons service the equipment"
This was a major change in the 2002 code. In the '99 code the motor disconnect could be deleted any time the motor controller disconenct required by 430-102(A) was capable of being locked in the open position. Now you also have to comply with (a) or (b) above before you can delete the local disconnect. The effect of the '02 code change is to require many more motors to have local disconnects. In my opinon, the word "impracticable" in (a) does not mean you can delete the disconnect just because of the cost of installing it.
Don