6.3 & 6.4 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Memo to Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission June 23, 1998 Page 5 • The accessory structures should be painted blue to match the existing building and screened from view. Illumination No lighting is proposed for the tower. Interference All applications for new service have to be accompanied by an intermodulation study which evaluates potential interference problems. Recommendation Variance It is recommended the Board of Adjustment approve the variance request to the setback requirements based on the following findings: 1. Literal enforcement of the ordinance will cause undue hardship in that the tower is designed to collapse on itself not fall over and • compliance with the setback requirement would place the tower in the middle of the property which would interfere with reasonable use of the property. 2. The hardship is caused by special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the property and the structure involved and which are not characteristic of, or applicable to, other lands or structure in the same area. The hardship is particular to the land and structure involved in that the property is only 280 feet wide which does not allow any location on the site to meet the 150 foot setback. 3. The literal application of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the petitioner of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance. There are other two other sites in the city with monopole towers, AT&T and APT, that do not meet the setback requirements. There are also 3 guyyed lattice towers located near the intersection of County Road 33 and Proctor Road which do not meet setback requirements. 4. The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the petitioner's own action or inaction. The need for the variance is a consequence of the lot width. • \\elkriver\sys\shrdoc\planning\scott\cu98-16.doc