Laserfiche WebLink
located near transmi ; n lines As_a_member of the board at the <br />industrial park, he contacted a nationwide insurance company <br />seeking an unbiased opinion on insurance coverage. The insurance <br />company contacted does not write locally but they did say that if <br />the tower is there, they would rate the policy with a 15% increase. <br />Mr. Nelson advised that he has been negotiating since September <br />with Sears and entered into a letter of intent with them. However, <br />the project management team from Miami came out and when they were <br />told there was a tower going in, they called and sent a letter <br />stating that they would stop all negotiations immediately and not <br />consider the site with the pending tower. They have also been <br />informed they may lose a manufacturing tenant as well as other new <br />projects. Everyone wants and needs emergency communications but <br />this tower is not compatible. <br />Attorney Steve Henderson, representing the Association's <br />interest, advised the owners of the industrial park had voted to <br />oppose the project as incompatible. Attorney Henderson felt the <br />jury is still out on the health impact, but he believes the <br />situation is comparable to the haunted house syndrome. Also, the <br />tower is constructed so that, should it fall, it would not encroach <br />on any surrounding property. <br />Chairman Macht questioned whether the park's -storm water site <br />is owned by the park, and Director Boling advised there are no <br />structures on the storm water site. <br />Attorney Henderson felt the County's ordinance allows the <br />tower to fall on adjoining lots and felt there should be "no fly" <br />zone rather than a "no fall" zone. The insurance company considers <br />the presence of the tower as an insurance risk subject to a <br />surcharge and there are too many uncertainties as to the health <br />issues. <br />Attorney Barkett questioned whether the insurance company had <br />looked at the tower design, and Attorney Henderson indicated they <br />had. <br />Attorney Barkett felt they could not address unsupported <br />public fears and nebulous concerns but could address construction <br />concerns. Also, any proposed future use would have to obtain a <br />building permit as well as contracts and other permits. <br />The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard in this <br />matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing. <br />Commissioner Adams felt there are more compatible locations in <br />agricultural areas. <br />NOVEMBER 7, 1995 39 BOOK 9 6 PhCE 552 <br />