Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Macht believed it is just a question of attempting to have them go <br />through the same procedures other entities must follow. <br />Commissioner Adams felt if the County does not allow antennae in residential areas, <br />we have not taken away their right to have an antenna, but only their right to have it in a <br />particular area. <br />Director Boling suggested other alternatives such as perhaps allowing the 110% cap <br />in residential areas. He believed that staff would find it very difficult to enforce the <br />regulations when permits are not issued and the County has no code on the books in this <br />area. <br />The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in <br />this matter. <br />Sasan Rohani, of 644 2e Street SW, a County employee who took a vacation <br />hour to be here, presented his objections to the ordinance: <br />Board of County Commissioners <br />May 6, 1997 <br />9:00 A.M. <br />Commercial Communication Tower/Antenna Ordinance <br />Intent of the Ordinance (Section 971.44): <br />* To limit the proliferation of communication towers <br />* To provide for visual separation of communication towers <br />(minimize negative aesthetic Impact) <br />* To provide for physical separation of towers and residents <br />for safety and esthetic reasons <br />As part of the "Transmission Communication Tower" definition the <br />following are proposed to be exempted: <br />* A structure supporting a utility transmission line(s) only <br />* A structure up to 150' high supporting a 69KV or higher <br />voltage utility transmission line(s) and an antenna (s) <br />These exemptions are contrary to the intent of the ordinance. <br />There are thousands of utility poles Within the urban Service <br />Area and adjacent to residential dwelling units. The cnunty <br />could possibly see many 150' utility/communication towers along <br />major county roadways and in residential neighborhoods. By <br />restricting the new communication towers the county will increase <br />the demand for this type of utility/communication tower within <br />the Urban Service Area. <br />Options to avoid further proliferation of utility/communication <br />towers that could result due to the above referenced exceptions <br />as stated in the proposed ordinance: <br />I. Not to exempt any structure .lust by r1rht and <br />require all communication towers (even those <br />on top of utility poles) to go through normal <br />procedures and get the appropriate permits <br />or <br />MAY 69 1997 52 <br />