Laserfiche WebLink
<br />i: <br />" <br />" <br />I, <br />I! <br />I' <br />II <br />Ii <br />I: <br />Ii <br />Ii <br />,I <br />Ii <br />" <br />Ii <br />II <br />Ii <br />,I <br />Ii <br />ii <br />Ii <br />Ii <br />II <br />I! <br />i: <br />Ii <br />Ii <br />I <br />:! <br />1: <br />L <br />, <br />I' <br />H <br />I <br />Ii <br />Ii <br />I: <br />II <br />Ii <br />11 <br />I: <br />!: <br />i. <br />I' <br />i: <br />Ii <br />j: <br />Ii <br />I <br />i: <br />! <br />j <br />!, <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />j <br />i <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />j' <br />I. <br />r <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />I <br />i <br />i <br />1: <br /> <br />r-< <br />t! '>r <br />R J <br />\.........._-- ' <br /> <br />,------ <br />( ); <br />'-..';/ <br /> <br />(~', <br />~" <br /> <br />\ <br />I <br /> <br />ZoningBulletin <br /> <br />June 10, 20091 Volume 3 I No. 11 <br /> <br />economic reasons"); and (2) the Amendments amounted to illegal spot <br />zoning crafted specifically to allow the erection of the T-Mobile cell tower. <br /> <br />Finding the.r;e were no material issues of fact in dispute, and deciding <br />the matter on the law alone, the court granted summary judgment in fa- <br />vor of the town and T-Mobile. <br /> <br />The Residents appealed. <br /> <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> <br />The Court of Appeals of Indiana first held that the town's motivation <br />in enacting the Amendments could not serve as a reason to invalidate <br />them. This was because the town "exercised its legislative power" in <br />passing the Amendments <br />The court also held that: (1) the Amendments were not spot zoning; <br />and (2) even assuming they were spot zoning, the Amendments were not <br />illegal. The court explained that "spot zoning" was "the singling out of <br />one piece of property for a diHerent treatment from that accorded to sim- <br />ilar surrounding land which is indistinguishable from it in character, all <br />for the economic benefit of the owner of the lot or area so singled out." <br />The court found that although the Amendments singled out cell towers <br />and antennae for exception from the building height requirements, they <br />did not single out a single piece of property for different treatment. The <br />Amendments did "not change the zoning solely for the purpo,se of con- <br />structing a cell tower. Rather, the [AmendJIlents] create[d] a governmental <br />dIstrict where the [t]own c[ould] consolidate governmental services and <br />utilities." In any case, said the court, even assuming the Amendments <br />amounted to spot zoning, they were valid because they bore a "rational <br />relation to the public health, safety, morals, convenience, or general wel- <br />faFe." This was because: (1) improved cellular communic::ations in the <br />area would have a "direct, positive effect on the safety and convenience <br />of the [t]own as well as the surrounding community;'" and (2) the town's <br />decision to supplement its revenues by leasing municipal property was <br />"rationally related to improving the [t]own's general welfare." <br /> <br />See also: L & . WOutdoor Advertising Co. v. State, 539 NE2d 497 <br />(Ind. Ct. App. 1989). <br /> <br />See also: Penn v. Metropolitan Plan Commission of Marion County, 141 <br />Ind. App. 387, 228 N.E.2d 25 (1967). <br /> <br />Case Note: The Residents had also challenged the town's actions in <br />.entering into a site lease with T-Mobile for the purpose of construct- <br />ing a cell tower. The court ul-timately found that the town's autho- <br />rization of the site lease was valid because the town: (1) authorized <br />the site lease pursuant to proper statutory procedures; and (2) suf- <br />ficiently complied with notice requirements. <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />57 <br />