PH-NS ORD-1996-012 Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Telecommunication Towers

Browse Search

lUv 1 Mary Willis indicated that the buffering is required around the base of the tower to shield 2 the view around the base of the tower. It could be around the perimeter if, for instance, it was a 3 two acre area. It is more likely that it would be around the base of the tower. 4 5 Jerry Eatman, indicated that the primary objection is that the list and who gets on the list 6 would involve the Planning Department in the day-to-day operation of the business of these 7 companies. He felt that the free-enterprise line is crossed when County staff keeps a list of 8 competitors who must be notified. The issues involved for the industry are financial and .9 competitive. 10 11 John Weldon mentioned that his company, BellSouth, is the newest company in this 12 business. ATT will soon be coming to this market and they will be a direct competitor. They do 13 not want to be required to co-locate with a direct competitor. 14 15 Lee Rafalow stated that in his opinion the only reason that these companies do not want 16 notification requirements is so that the public will not be informed. 17 18 Mary Willis stated that the provision of the list is to allow everyone to be on an equitable 19 basis. It is possible to reword this section of the Amendment to accomplish this. The intent is 20 to have tower owners identified, as well as to identify all additional users. New.users would be 21 added to the list. Companies not erecting the towers themselves, but who have equipment to 22 co-locate, would also be included. The intent of the Amendment was to have as 23 comprehensive list as possible. 24 25 A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to 26 refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than 27 January 16, 1996. 28 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 29 30 (b) Article 6.16 Home Occupations 31 This item was presented by Mary Willis to receive citizen comment on a 32 proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to clarify the intent of Article 6.16.6.3 regarding 33 screening of home occupations on lots in excess of 200,000 square feet (4.59 acres). The 34 Administration recommends that the proposed amendment be referred to the Planning Board 35 for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 36 16, 1996. 37 38 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 39 Commissioner Gordon asked how it would be assured that the accessory buildings would 40 not be visible to adjacent roads and property. 41 42 Mary Wiles stated that by reviewing the Site Plan and the landscape on the property a 43 determination would be made. It would not apply in cases where the proposal was to plant 44 vegetation that would eventually grow up to be an adequate shield. In this particular case, the 45 shield would have to be in-place and already existing within a wooded area.