Agenda - 02-02-1999 - 9a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

and those opposed. The Public Hearing was closed and the case was referred to the December 1, 1998, meeting for a decision. Draft minutes from the November 17, 1998, meeting aze included in the binder provided. 3 Because agenda for the December 1, 1998, Boazd of Commissioners meeting was so full and the complete record of the November 17, 1998, public hearing was not available at that time, Special Use Permit Application SU-02-98 was not placed on the December 1, 1998, agenda. Minutes of the November 17, 1998, meeting and supplementary materials presented at the hearing by the applicant became available only recently. The complete record of all proceedings concerning this application is included in the accompanying binder. Administration Recommendation The Administration recommends that the Boazd of County Commissioners deny the Class A Special Use Permit per the Planning Boazd recommendation. Staff finds that the applicant has not carried its burden in proving that the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. Evidence presented at both public hearings, an Impact Investigation prepared by Joseph Smathers, Jr. and an Impact Study by Morgan & Company, Inc., do not provide convincing evidence. Specifically, those reports do not furnish information relating to the proximity (distance) from existing towers of properties used in the analyses nor compaze those distances with proximity of the proposed tower to properties on Greenfield Road. Those reports do not compare sales (market values) of the properties before construction of a tower with sales (mazket values) of the properties after construction of a tower; nor do those reports provide any comparison of properties within an area impacted by a tower with respect to sales of properties in closest proximity to the tower (or properties where the tower is most visible) with sales of properties farthest from the tower (or from which the tower is not very visible). Recent public hearings on Special Use Permits for telecommunication towers raise questions about the compatibility of such towers in residential neighborhoods. While the public hearings on Special Use Permits for telecommunication towers are evidentiary or quasi judicial hearings, the questions raised aze of a county legislative nature. The Boazd of County Commissioners may need to consider legislatively what the evidence needs to show. If the Board of County Commissioners does decide to find in the affirmative on the specific and general findings, the Planning Staff recommends the Special Use Permit be subject to the following conditions: