Laserfiche WebLink
(3) Did the PIanning and Zoning Commission fail to consider adequately the effects of <br />the proposed development upon suaounding properties, traffic circulation or public <br />health, safety and welfare? <br />— Appeal Letter Response: The appeal letter alleges that the Planning and <br />Zoning Commission did fail to consider adequately the effects of the <br />proposed tower upon surrounding properties which include homes and an <br />adjacent pre-school (170 children, plus staff). The letter also cites negative <br />aesthetic impacts That the tower would have on the surrounding twat <br />neighborhood. <br />— Staff's Response: The Planning and Zoning Commission did not fait to <br />consider adequately the effects of the proposed tower because it followed <br />county LDRs that address effects on surrounding properties and traffic <br />circulation, and it followed legal advice from the County Attorney's Office <br />regarding possible environmental effects ofradio-frequency emissions. In <br />regard to effects on surrounding properties, the Planning and Zoning <br />Commission applied the appropriate zoning district and specific land use <br />criteria. Those criteria were enacted by the Board of County Commissioners <br />as a resuli of extensive public workshops on telecommunications towers and <br />are part of a county -wide regulatory agproach that requires non -camouflaged <br />commercial telecommunications towers to be located outside of residentially <br />zoned areas, and within agriculturally zoned areas such as the subject site. <br />Such non -camouflaged towers are specifically allowed in very low density, <br />larger parcel areas {such as the area of the subject site}, so that tower impacts <br />will affect fewer residents and so that greater setbacks can be applied. In <br />addition, the LDRs restrict non -camouflaged towers to monopoles under 1 SO <br />feet in height {such as the type proposed) in the agricultural areas east of I -9S <br />(the area of the subject site}. In A-2 and A-3 zoned areas, which are located <br />west of I -4S, and within industrial areas, the LDRs allow towers 1 SO feet and <br />taller. Thus, the proposed tower fits within the countywide regulatory <br />approach in regard to tower height, type, and location. <br />Thus, by applying the restrictions of the A-1 zoning district to the type and <br />height of the tower, and by applying the significant setbacks, buffering of the <br />tower base/campound area, and other tower criteria, the Planning and Zoning <br />Commission addressed the effects of the proposed tower on surrounding <br />properties. Due to the extremely low traffic generating characteristics of the <br />proposed, unmanned tower, traffic circulation is not an issue. Therefore, the <br />Planning and Zoning Comtission also did not fail in regard to the effects of <br />the project an traffic circulation. <br />In regazd to health, safety, and welfare issues, the Deputy County Attorney <br />advised the Planning and Zoning Commission that federal regulations restrict <br />the county from regulating personal communications facilities on the basis <br />of environmental effects of radio frequency emissions (see attachment #2). <br />Such issues are regulated by the federal government (Federal <br />Communications Commission) rather than local governments. In regard to <br />the issue of electromagnetic fields from cellular phone antennas and human <br />health, Nextel Communications has provided staff with a S4 page document <br />(updated September 14, 2000} which is now on file with the Boazd office for <br />reviewneference. <br />December 12, 204Q <br />�� BKl16PG421 <br />