12/19/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ANALYSIS: In addressing its tower regulations, the county is trying to balance the federal mandate to reasonably accommodate wireless communications needs with the need to protect the community and affected property owners from negative aesthetic impacts of new towers. It is staff's understanding that the Board is primarily concerned with the aesthetic impacts of new towers and is secondarily concerned with the aesthetic impacts of attaching antennas to existing structures. By presenting in this report information on projected demand and alternative regulations, it is staff's intent to provide the Board sufficient information to find the right balance between reasonable accommodation and aesthetics. Based on information provided by the 5 known wireless communications industries operating in Indian River County, the county can, in the next 5-10 years, expect 38-61 new antennas to be located within the county. Of that total, 6-11 new antennas will need to be mounted at heights of over 1501. Some of these higher antennas could be located on existing or approved towers, but some will probably require new tower sites. Most of the new, taller tower sites would be located along the I-95 corridor. In addition to these projections, the county can expect 3 more wireless communications providers to enter the Indian River County market, according to information _provided by the FCC. As stated in the attached summary charts, the county could consider setting a height limitation on new towers, if the Board determines that it would be better to have a greater number of shorter towers to provide an equivalent coverage area. Information from wireless communications providers also indicates that most of the new antennas will be mounted at heights under 1501, with one provider needing antennas at heights of only 70' - 80'. Staff's research indicates that antennas at shorter heights (under 1501) are easier to co -locate or camouflage, and in most cases would not require safety lighting. However, not all such antennas will be co -located, and new towers for shorter antennas will be needed. It is staff's position that antennas that are camouflaged or appropriately co -located could adequately address the Board's concerns regarding aesthetics. Therefore, incentives for shorter antenna heights, co -location, and camouflaging should be fully addressed in the county's communication tower regulations. Such incentives are contained in the draft regulations and alternative regulations described in the attached summary Chart "A". The attached summary charts compare the county's existing regulations, the draft regulations reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and additional alternatives derived from ordinances of other local governments and from discussion at seminars and meetings with industry representatives. The summary's format is structured to help the Board compare alternatives on an issue by issue basis. After addressing each issue, the Board will need to determine the regulation alternatives that it wants staff to pursue. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners consider each wireless communications land use issue and corresponding regulation alternatives, and direct staff to initiate changes to the county's current LDRs. 7 DECEMBER 19, 1996 5MK 101)