Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/03/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin Injunction-County seeks to stop homeowner from operating radio station from his house Homeowner constructed 130-foot broadcast tower without obtaining permit Citation: Dispoto v. Marion County, 2007 WL 3223761 (Flct. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2007) FLORIDA (11/02/07)-In September, 2003, Dispoto constructed a BO-footcommercial radio broadcast tower on his property in Marion County without a building permit. At the time, the~county's land devel- opment code prohibited the construction of a commercial radio tower in excess of 50 feet without a special use permit. The code also prohib- ited the operation of a radio station from residentially-zoned property without a special use permit. Dispoto began operating a low-power radio station from his resi- dence without first obtaining a special use permit. After the county re- ceived complaints from his neighbors, it notified Dispoto of the viola- tions and specified necessary corrections, but the corrections were never made. In November 2004, however, Dispoto was granted a special use permit to operate a radio station from his residence. The permit was conditioned upon the removal of the illegal tower. Nonetheless, Dispoto refused to remove the tower, and he continued to operate the radio station froIn his home. The county eventually asked the court for an injunction to prevent Dispoto from operating a radio station from his property. The county also aske<;l the court to order the removal of the BO-foot tower. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Dispoto applied for a special use permit for a 100-foot tower, claiming it would be used for amateur, or "ham" radio purposes. The county refused to accept the application because of Dispoto' non-compliance with its codes. The county's request for an injunction was granted, and Dispoto appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. To obtain a temporary injunction, the moving party had to establish that: 1) irreparable injury would result if the injunction was not grant- ed; 2) there was no adequate remedy at law; 3) it had a clear legal right to the requested relief; and 4) the public would be served by the tempo- rary injunction. Dispoto contended that the County failed to satisfy this four-prong test, but the appeals court disagreed. The County satisfied the first two prongs of the test for a temporary injunction because "[w]here the government [sought] an injunction in 4 66 (,/~.......\ , ' , j /-. )