Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission asks staff to research enforcement after unpermitted 120‑foot tower erected near district border
Summary
Commissioners instructed staff to research what legal tools the county can use after learning a roughly 120‑foot communications tower was erected without county approval near the Fourth and Fifth District border; discussion cited safety, FAA visibility and gaps in immediate enforcement authority.
Commissioners asked county planning staff to research enforcement options after they learned a communications tower of roughly 120 feet had been erected without a conditional‑use permit near the border of the Fourth and Fifth Districts.
At the meeting a commissioner said the tower—installed without county approval—“is approximately a 120 feet. It's, polished aluminum ... not painted, in a manner that it would be visible to aircraft,” and reported the county had last contacted the owner in April and had not received the promised compliance application. The commissioner said the site also raised soil‑and‑erosion and forestry concerns.
Planning staff and commissioners discussed what the county’s code currently allows. A staff member and commissioners reported that the county attorney told staff the county lacks explicit authority to order removal of a nonconforming structure in this exact circumstance, although zoning violations carry misdemeanor fines under the county code. As one commissioner summarized on the record, the county attorney had told staff that “the county does not have the authority to remove it.”
Speakers raised public‑safety concerns tied to aviation and emergency response. One commissioner noted the tower is close enough to local flight paths that it might not be visible to certain aircraft and that it did not appear on FAA charts; commissioners said the tower lacked aircraft marking or lighting and that electrical and communications service already are connected.
Commissioners asked staff to research and return with a clear memo on what the county can and cannot do, and whether an ordinance amendment is needed to allow cease‑and‑desist orders or court petitions for removal if a landowner does not apply for required permits. The planning commission reached consensus to have staff return with options at a future meeting; staff said it would follow a progressive enforcement approach that begins with compliance efforts and, if necessary, moves to formal notices.
