Agenda - 09-03-1996 - VIII-G - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

11/27/95 Public Hearing Minutes 5 1 that Ms. Baldwin would be required to participate equally in paving the road and the right-of- 2 way from St. Mary's Road to Reba and Roses. He also asked that the Reba and Roses 3 facilities be inspected to assure that they meet all State safety standards and Federal handicap 4 accessibility standards. 5 6 John Hartwell spoke in support of this Special Use Permit. He stated that he has 7 discussed this request with most of the neighbors and each one of them supports her request. 8 The neighborhood wants to see this approved. He did express concern about necessary 9 improvements to the road and the intersection at St. Mary's. He requested that the 10 Commissioners consider apportioning the road costs so that those who will benefit from the 11 improvements are required to help with the costs. 12 13 Laura Baldwin requested that the Commissioners take into account that the cost of road 14 improvements for subdivisions are factored into the cost of the homes. It is not possible for her 15 to pass on the cost of improving this road to her customers. It would be an unreasonable and 16 devastating economic hardship on her. She also felt that only she bears the burden of traffic to 17 Reba and Roses. 18 19 A motion was made by Commissioner Wllhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to 20 refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than 21 January 16, 1996. 22 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 23 24 4. Zoning Or finance Text Amendments 25 (a) Article 8.8.17 Telecommunications 26 This item was presented by Planner Mary Willis to receive comment on a 27 proposed amendment concerning Special Use Permit requirements for telecommunication 28 towers. The proliferation of telecommunication towers is an issue of concern to Orange County 29 as well as other jurisdictions nationwide. After reviewing provisions which have been adopted 30 in a number of other jurisdictions, the Planning staff recommends a proposed amendment. The 31 key aspects of this amendment are as follows: Telecommunication towers would be 32 established as a separate use and would require approval of a Class B Special Use Permit by 33 the Board of Adjustment. The set back to non-residential property lines could be reduced to 34 50% of the height of the tower if the remaining distance were included within an easement on 35 adjoining property. A type C Land Use Buffer(40 feet in width) would need to be provided. 36 Specific documentation to indicate that efforts to co-locate on an existing tower were 37 unsuccessful moot be provided. Issues of tower color, lighting and view from historic site, 38 scenic road and major view corridor must be resolved. Obsolete towers must be removed. 39 40 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. 41 None. 42 43 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. 44 Planning Board member Bill Waddell asked about the request that engineers could 46 provide evidence that a setback includes the potential collapse zone.