12/12/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

would be no rational objection to it because it is agricultural but a 149' tower is not. He thought that neither the Board nor the PZC had a right to foist this tower on the neighborhood. Far these reasons he would support the motion, Chairman Adams recounted the reasons why the Board called for the first moratorium on tower permits. She felt there has been a definite encouragement for co-lo��ating on existing towers. The Board knew that additional sites would have to be granted. SI~.e thought it would be interesting if this application had been for a lacatian on Peter Robinson's property. She has never been a fan of towers, but was always cognizant of the neighbors' feelings and she lives near a tower which is close enough. When night falls, it i�� amazing to see all the lighted towers and they keep coming. She felt for the neighborhood and would support the motion. She based her reasoning on question (3) that the PZC hacl failed to adequately examine the effects. County Attorney Bangel clarified that the motion on the floor was to �:phold the appeal and rule in favor of the appellant and overrule the decision of the PZC based on question (3} and the evidence contained in the entire record. Vice Chairman Ginn thought that the health studies could also be included. Chairman Adams believed that there was evidence to show that the neighborhood would change to a drastic degree and a 149' tower is a drastic degree. She based l ger support on number (3). Vice Chairman Ginn concurred. Attorney Bangel inquired of the mover and seconder whether they concurred with basing their actions on question (3) as set out in the memorandum. Commissioner Tippin and Commissioner Stanbridge agreed to the clarifi�catian. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously. December 12, 2000 102 i