4/4/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

s 2. Did the reviewing official act in an arbitrary or capricious manner? Response: The Planning and Zoning Commission did not act arbitrarily or capriciously, but acted based upon the LDR definition of "commercial camouflaged tower", county zoning requirements (Chapter 911 and specific tower regulations (971). In accordance with LDR provisions that'have been supplied to and discussed with the applicant since the beginning of-tl a code enforcement and after -the -fact site plan review process. The Commission's determination ensures that, within residential districts, commercial towers are camouflaged so as to "... blend into the existing surroundings and to be disguised so as not to have the appearance of a communications tower...". Thus, the Commission's decision is not arbitrary or capricious since it is clearly based on the LDRs. 3. Did the reviewing official fail to consider adequately the effects of the proposed development upon surrounding properties, traffic circulation or public health, safety, and welfare? Response: The Planning and Zoning Commission did not fail to consider adequately effects on surrounding properties. In fact, as previously stated, the entire review process was initiated in response to a complaint from a surrounding resident. The Commission's decision ensures that the LDR standards are followed to protect abutting property owners and residents (existing and future) from adverse aesthetic impacts of an inadequately camouflaged commercial tower. Furthermore, the Commission's decision protects owners of residential properties throughout the county by preventing a precedent that would allow similar inadequately camouflaged commercial tower designs in all residential districts. 4. Did the reviewing official fail to evaluate the application with respect to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations of Indian River County? Response: The Planning and Zoning Commission did not fail to evaluate the application with respect to the LDRs and Comprehensive Plan. As previously stated, a clear and straight -forward reading of the definition of camouflaged towers has been applied. The Commission's application of the LDRs is reasonable and upholds the stated intent of the county's tower regulations to "...avoid(ing) unnecessary proliferation of new tower sites, and minimize(ing) negative aesthetic impacts of communications towers and antennas...". Also, the Commission's decision is firmly based on the adopted comprehensive plan land use element policy to "...address aesthetic concerns regarding telecommunication towers and antennas by several means including: providing incentives for co -location on existing structures, limiting the possible location of future towers, setbacks, landscaping, camouflaging, and requiring unobtrusive lighting...". Thus, the Commission's decision is clearly based upon the comprehensive plan and the LDRs (see attachment #7). RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Make a fording that the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision did not fail any of the areas outlined in LDR section 902.07, and 2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to deny the proposed tower design based upon a determination that the design does not constitute a camouflaged tower under the existing LDRs. APRIL 49 2000 •