4/15/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

now incorporated into the proposed amendments are the result of discussion at the March 14th PSAC meeting (see last page of attachment #6), and were clarified and affirmed at the March 27th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The format of the proposed amendments is based upon a more thorough breakdown of tower categories (amateur vs. commercial) and tower types (camouflaged, monopole, and remaining tower types) by tower height (various thresholds: 70', 80', and 150'). In general, the proposed LDR amendments create incentives for use of camouflaged towers and antenna attachments to a variety of structures (collocation), and establish more restrictions and greater scrutiny (e.g. via the special exception use process) for all other types of tower proposals. As indicated on page 18 of the LDR amendment proposal, staff recommends approval of a separation between towers requirement only in conjunction with certain exemptions from the separation requirement. : Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Direct staff to make any necessary revisions to the LDR amendments proposal (4/3/97 version). 2. Invoke the pending ordinance doctrine for the revised ordinance. 3. Announce its intention to adopt the revised ordinance at its regular meeting of May 6, 1997. Planning Director Stan Boling gave a brief overview of the proposed ordinance and noted several changes to be made to the draft as follows: (1) on page 54 of the backup, an additional definition of "utilities"; (2) on page 64, add language to Item E to make sure "setbacks do not increase the degree of setback nonconformity"; (3) on page 66, at the top of the page, in paragraph 4, the section number should read "Section 917.06 (8) (d) "; (4) on page 71, the separation distance in Item 2 only applies to lattice type towers 150 feet or over. In response to a question, Director Boling stated that there a some circumstances where it would be advantageous to have a cluster of towers. Those circumstances would be related to the size of the towers, not the size of the area. Chairman Eggert inquired how the County determines charges for towers, and Emergency Services Director Doug Wright stated that research has discovered that an average charge would be approximately $40,000 to co -locate with a $1,500 monthly fee, with the understanding that the company will provide its own source of electricity and its own maintenance building. Commissioner Ginn suggested that FEMA policies should be incorporated, and Director Wright felt the County has already addressed those policies in its catastrophic hurricane plan. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. BOOK hi PAGE V- 7 APRIL 159 1997 15