Agenda - 05-28-1996 - C4(a)1-5 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

106 6. Unreasonable Interference with View. The proposed amendment presented for public hearing in November 1995 included a standard that"the tower and antenna will not unreasonably interfere with the view of or from any historic site, scenic road, or major view corridor. Questions were raised regarding how "unreasonable interference" would be defined. This provision has been eliminated from the draft due to the lack of a specific standard to define `unreasonable". The intent of the provision would be met in making the general Special Use Permit findings, particularly the findings that the use maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, and that the location and character of the use is in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and is in compliance with zoning regulations and the Land Use Plan. 7. Minimum Tower Height It is expected that the height of new towers will decrease after construction of the network of towers that will provide the basic coverage needed for the system. The location of additional towers is based on demand, and as towers are closer together, the height needed is not as great. Based on a review of requirement of other jurisdictions, both local and national, the Planning Staff recommends that towers less than 75 feet in height be permitted by right. 8. Other Types of Towers Commissioner Willhoit questioned applicability to towers other than those used for telecommunication purposes, such as those used for air quality monitoring. The staff recommends that telecommunication towers continue to be treated as a specific use because each tower is constructed in the context of a larger network, and it can be anticipated that requests for additional towers in the network will continue. The proposed ordinance provisions address issues which are unique to a telecommunications network. Other tower-like structures or facilities are now subject to an additional setback requirement of one foot for every two feet of height above the height limit specified for the zoning district. Also, the tower must be associated with a use that is permitted in the zoning district. Although there are occasional tower structures proposed for purposes other than telecommunication, these requests are infrequent, and the Staff has identified no trend which would indicate plans to develop a coordinated network for some other purpose in the future. The Planning Staff recommends that other tower structures continue to meet the applicable setback requirements. If the County wishes to apply different or additional standards or review procedures to other types of towers, a separate ordinance amendment is recommended.