Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 1 · column 5 of 5 · from the scan, no model involved
Ihe proposal by the Planning Commission to change the definition of tower height by measuring that from the lowest portion of the tower base instead of the highest was rejected as being inconsequential and unnecessary; the addition of an inflation factor into the requirement for a “demolition” bond was disapproved because it was redundant—the text in the original ordinance permits the County to establish a bond sufficient to cover costs of tower removal, and the Board of Supervisors felt that this language covered all contingencies, including inflation; the proposed increase of application fees to $5,000 for any facility was excessive, according to the Board, and Mr. Luke expressed the opinion that it would not be defensible in court—the Board approved a fee change from $1,000 to $2,000 for a category 4 facility and $1,500 for all others; the Board disapproved language calling for a horticulturist to attest to the health of “forested buffer” as being unnecessary; the Board modified the Commission’s proposal for a “crane or balloon” test at all proposed tower locations by requiring such tests “at the request of the Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission; and the Board rejected the proposed maximum height reduction of Category 1 through 3 facilities from 199 to 130 feet because the ordinance was designed to promote those facilities that employ existing structures, and they felt that a height reduction would do just the opposite.
Supervisors unanimously adopted the amendments to the telecomSee
BOARD, Page AS
90.6%