12/12/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a tower is proposed in a rural residential area. She believed the Commission would be on firm standing if they denied the tower based on 971.441 F.S. She advised that there are many cases where the courts have upheld the local decisions as long as the decisions are non- discriminatory between companies and do not totally deny them access. She advised of additional backup materials which included copies of a petition, photographs with t:1e tower drawn in, and copies of newspaper articles. She advised their appeal includes failure of the PZC to consider adequately the effects of the proposed tower upon surrounding property based on aesthetics, declining property values, and quality of life and health. She believed the proposed site was inappropriate based on the surrounding residences and 170 children in a nearby preschool. She enumerated the additional church development planned for the area. Telecommunications companies may claim that there is no evidence of heath woncerns from towers, but research seems to indicate that there is no definitive evidence at :his time because there have not been enough proper studies. She cited and read excerpts from two studies (Report by Dr. John E. Molder, October 1999 and NBC News British [The Expert Group] packet of safety concerns) and was prepared to give copies to the Board. Her conclusion from the two studies, which came out after the FCC study, was that there is not enough information to rule out the need to protect children from an environment which might be impacted by telecommunication waves. She felt these studies deserved some attention. She called their attention to petitions signed by 109 families of children who attend Maitland Farm Preschool who are very concerned about the proposed tower structure. She predicted the tower would have a negative aesthetic effect on their rural neighborhood. She pointed out that the tower is just one foot shy of requiring a special exception hearing. She believed that Nextel failed to respond adequately to many questions and issues 1 hat were appropriately raised by the Planning &Zoning Commission's members ani staff's correspondence. She cited 971.441 and 902.074(c), and read that simply fulfilling the December 12, 2000 BK � 16 PG 4C4