My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/13/1996
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1996
>
11/13/1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:06:32 PM
Creation date
6/17/2015 9:05:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Workshop Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/13/1996
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).
View images
View plain text
BOOK 99 FA -E 849 <br />would want to go through in order to be allowed in a certain area. <br />The County could create standards for conditional uses or special <br />exceptions within certain zoning categories where the carrier would <br />have to demonstrate that they meet certain criteria to be allowed <br />to place certain types of antennae in certain types of zoning <br />categories. Creating a menu of LDRs is being done in other areas, <br />such as Broward County where many cities are struggling with this <br />issue. Ms. Delagough stressed that the carriers need to know the <br />certainty with which they are dealing. Not that they are <br />guaranteed anything, because they know they are not. They would <br />like to know if they come in and meet certain criteria in various <br />zoning categories they are likely to be considered favorable. For <br />example, if they agree to put a stealth antenna on a roof top in a <br />certain zoning district, they would be considered favorably. It <br />would be an incentive for the carriers if they know they would be <br />considered favorably if they followed the criteria set out in your <br />LDRs with regard to co -location and stealth antennae. <br />Chairman Adams thanked Ms. Delagough for her suggestions. <br />Mr. Kreines addressed the matter of the industry developing a <br />master plan for Indian River County. He emphasized that it is very <br />refreshing to see the cooperation that was displayed here today; <br />however, we are asking a question similar to the one about how many <br />angels can dance on the head of a pin. He believed the County <br />should give the carriers the specific locations, but help them to <br />expedite their plans if they meet certain criteria. <br />Director Keating noted that staff recommendations and <br />incentives have included exactly that. The question remains on <br />where the towers are not wanted. The last tower application for <br />the Life for Youth Ranch location would have met the requirements <br />of the draft Comp Plan Land Use Regulations (LDRs). Staff is <br />trying to find out if we are trying to please everyone in this <br />county and whether approval is subject to a few people being <br />unhappy because they can see the tower from their property. <br />Commissioner Bird felt we have to keep in mind the tremendous <br />source of revenue in allowing carriers to locate antennae on County <br />property. <br />Chairman Adams didn't feel we are ready to give Director <br />Keating direction, but Commissioner Bird asked if the Board would <br />go so far as to say that we don't want 300 -ft. towers in the urban <br />40 <br />NOVEMBER 13, 1996 <br />� O � <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.