Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2000

Home

December 24, 1999 -- Page 7 of wireless services. There were gaps if remote users in certain areas were unable to connect with the land-based national network or maintain a connec- tion capable of reasonably uninterrupted conversation. Since AT&T presented evidence of possible gaps, the issue of whether wireless communications were prohibited had to go to trial. Citation: Cellular Telephone Company v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, No. 98-6484 (1999). see also: Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Willoth, 176 E3d 630 (1999). see also: Cellular Telephone Company v. Zoning Board, 24 E Supp. 2d 359 (1998) (lower court case). Nuisance -- City claims additional boat traffic is a nuisance FLORIDA (11/17/99) -- Windward Marina L.L.C. applied for a final devel- opment order to construct a dry-dock marina near the mouth of Destin Harbor. The city of Destin and the Destin City Council based the denial of the develop- ment order on a determination that the proposed development would be in- compatible with surrounding uses in that it would, given its location, create a "~oat navigation safety hazard at the mouth of the harbor. ; Windward sued, claiming nothing in the city's comprehensive plan placed a developer on notice that the amount of boat traffic generated by a proposed development would be a fadtor in determining whether a proposed develop- ment was consistent with surrounding uses and the comprehensive plan. The city argued that boat traffic fell under the "traffic generation" compat- ibility criteria. Additionally, the c~ty s comprehensive plan stated that compatr ibility was also dependent upon whether' the proposed use would result in "nuisances." DECISION: Affirmed. Although traffic generation only referred to land-based traffic, the city had the authority to deny the development order based on its determination that the proposed development would create a sig.nificant navigation safety hazard at the mouth of Destin Harbor. Under the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Devel- opment Regulation Act, it was clear ;'traffic," when used alone in a municipality's comprehensive plan, applied only to land-based traffic. How- ever, the term "nuisance" included certain harms, such as the impact a particu- lar land use might have on the safety of the public as a whole, even though the determination of what constituted a "nuisance" in any given circumstance was often dependent upon the facts. It was not possible to define all."nuisances." To make a statute sufficiently certain to comply with constitutional requirements, it was not necessary to furnish detailed plans and specifications of the acts or conduct prohibited.