Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/1999

Home

z.g. August 25, 1999 -- Page 3 advertised for members, and whether the club observed formalities. The club lacked the formalities of a genuinely selective membership pro- cess. Any man older than 21 years of age who was willing to initial the appli- cation could join. The "club" didn't investigate new members; no one had to show identification or reveal, his name. Members didn't participate in recom- mending new members and there was no limit on the number of possible members. Existing members had no control over the club. The owners established the club rules and the amount of the membership dues and had the sole authority to impose sanctions such as forfeiture of membership benefits. The club was still for profit and provided the same services and entertainment as the previously "public" spa. Moreover, the owners continued to advertise the spa under its original name as being open to the public and in business in the same location for more than 19 years. Finally, the owners didn't observe the formalities of a private club. Al- though the club issued membership cards, it didn't conduct membership meet- ings or even have bylaws. Citation: People oft he State of Colorado v. Business or Businesses Located at 2896 West 64th Avenue, Court of Appeals of Colorado, Div. Four, No. 98CA0136 (1999). see also: City of Chicago v. Severini, 414 N.E.2d 67 (1980). Com~nunications Tower -- Residents claim tower will adversely affect property values PENNSYLVANIA (6/25/99) -- Omnipoint Corp. applied to the township of Pine Grove's zoning board for a special exception permitting it to build a com- munications tower in a sparsely populated, mountainous region. Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, local zoning authorities couldn't discriminate among wireless service providers, prohibit the provision of wireless services, or make zoning decisions based on concerns over the environmental or health effects of radio emissions associated with w~relesg telephone service. If a board denied a permit, that denial had to be in writing and supported by substantial evidence. The board held hearings to discuss the permit. According to an Omnipoint representative, the proposed ~te was surrounded by 80-to-90-foot trees and therefore probably would be visible only to neighbors more than 600 feet away. Although the representative believed there were studies showing towers didn't adversely affect the values of adjoining properties, he had conducted no such study. On behalf of 10 others, a neighboring property owner said he estimated the trees to be about 60 feet tall and that the tower would be visible from neighbor- ing properties ~ therefore hurting their value. State law allowed local zoning boards to evaluate aesthetics and concern for property values when considering a request for a special exception. The