09/22/2020 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

... [T]he tower is to be located a distance more than equal to three hundred (300) percent of the tower height from the nearest residential dwelling (existing or under construction). A distance of 1,500 feet (300% of the 500 foot tower height) measured from the base of the subject tower covers the entire +17.8 acre property. As such, staff's finding is that development of a residential dwelling on the same property (owned/controlled by the same owner of the nonconformity) would increase the degree of the existing site -related nonconformity (the tower), since the 500' tower would not be allowed within 1,500 feet of a residential dwelling if built under current LDRs. Over the past year, Mr. Allenbaugh has researched the approval history and specifications of the subject communications tower. Among other things, Mr. Allenbaugh has learned that the tower, when built, was engineered to have a 200' design fall radius, a distance substantially less than the dwelling setback requirement of 300% of the tower height (1,500' in this case). Also, he was advised by staff that off-site residential dwellings, on parcels not under the ownership/control of the tower parcel owner, are allowed within the 1,500 setback. Appeal of Staffs Decision Initially, Mr. Allenbaugh's appeal started as an appeal of staff's interpretation of County regulations, contending that a residential dwelling should be allowed on the subject tower property, albeit outside of the tower's 200' design fall radius, particularly since off-site dwellings on parcels not under the ownership/control of the tower parcel owner are allowed within 1,500' of the tower. Mr. Allenbaugh has also provided examples of Vertical Bridge towers at other locations (outside of Indian River County, in Florida and in other states) where development has been allowed to occur in close proximity to towers of similar design (see application, Attachment 4). The procedure for processing "appeals from decisions of the community development director or his designee" is established under County Code Section 902.07 (see Attachment 5), which indicates that the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) hears and decides such appeals. Consistent with that procedure, Mr. Allenbaugh requested a formal letter from staff (i.e., the community development director or his designee) reaffirming staff's position on the matter. That letter was provided to him on March 12, 2020 (see Attachment 6). Subsequently, on April 3, 2020, Mr. Allenbaugh submitted an appeal of staff's March 12 letter, appealing staff's reaffirmed interpretation of the development restrictions applying to the subject tower property. Planning and Zoning Commission Decision On July 23, 2020, the PZC made a finding that staff s determination did not fail any of the three areas outlined in LDR Section 902.07(4), denied the appeal, and wholly affirm staff's determination by a vote of 5-2 (see Attachment 2). While affirming staff s determination, several members of the PZC, in acknowledgement of the unique set of facts regarding this situation, discussed the options for further appeal. At that point, staff confirmed that applicant could further appeal the PZC's decision to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). 171