Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends denial of variances for proposed 143-foot Kentucky Street cell tower
Summary
Seminole County staff recommended denial of variances that would permit a 143-foot monopole within much shorter distances than code requires from nearby residences; the Planning & Zoning Commission voted to deny the variances (and the contingent special exception) after hearing applicant claims of property-owner consents and several resident objections.
The Seminole County Planning & Zoning Commission voted to recommend denial of requested variances and the associated special exception for a proposed 143-foot monopole communication tower on Kentucky Street, concluding the requested reductions would substantially reduce the county’s required residential separation and fail to meet variance criteria.
Annie Silhouay, planning staff, presented the application and told the commission that by code a 143-foot tower requires a separation distance of 429 feet from properties with existing single-family residential uses. The applicant asked for four variances to allow the tower base to be as close as about 111 feet to one residential property line and 141, 307 and 308 feet to others. "Staff finds the requested variance is inconsistent with the applicable evaluation criteria of the Seminole County Land Development Code and does not support approval of the request," Silhouay said, noting that an 8-foot opaque fence, galvanized monopole finish and landscaping do not adequately mitigate the magnitude of the reduction in separation distance.
Mary Dodie Soul, legal counsel for C4 Towers, and Tim Oanosy, principal of the company, said they had obtained notarized written consents from the four affected property owners and that measured distances from the tower base to the residential structures (as opposed to property lines) in most cases exceed the required separation. Soul argued the code permits reduced separations when affected owners consent and that unique parcel geometries justify relief.
Two residents — who identified themselves as Ravi and Ragu Kanderti — spoke in opposition. They cited concerns about aesthetics, property values, proximity to a nearby school and sports complex, and siting a tower near densely populated residential areas. "We are opposing the setting up of this tower considering various things... it affects the value of our properties and also the aesthetics," one resident said.
Commissioners debated the technical arguments and the potential precedent of granting a large deviation from the residential separation standard. One board member moved to deny the variances, noting the magnitude of the requested reductions and the county’s intent to protect residential compatibility; the motion carried and the commission recommended denial to the Board of County Commissioners.
The recommendation to deny will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for final action.
