Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/1997

Home

Page 4 -- March 25, 1997 z~g. Rapaport, who lived near Mosser's proposed playground, appealed the granting of the zoning permit. Mosser appealed the conditions the board placed on her zoning permit. The court granted Rapaport's appeal and reversed on Mosser's zoning permit. It also denied Mosser's appeal. Mosser appealed. She argued the court incorrectly affirmed the board's finding that the playground was not a daycare center..She also said the court incorrectly reversed the granting of her zoning permit. DECISION: Affirmed. The ordinance governing special exceptions for daycare centers referred to a "structure." This meant a daycare center had to contain some kind of building or structure. Because Mosser's playground contained no such building or structure, it was not a daycare center. Therefore, the denial of the special exception was proper. The denial of Mosser's zoning permit also was proper. Mosser's playground was not similar in nature to a public playground, so it was not permitted in a medium-density residential zone. The essential feature of a public playground was its accessibility to everyone. Mosser's playground would be open to only her clients. Day,well Corp. v. Plymouth Township Zoning Hearing Board, 540 A.2d 558 (1955). Ma~zer Healthcare Corp. v. Lower Moreland Tow~zship Zoni~,g Hearing Board, 590 A.2d 65 (1991). Special Exception -- Community challenges construction of 300-foot antenna tower Evans v. Shore Commtmicatio~ts h~c., 685 A.2d 454 (Maryland) 1996 Shore Communications Inc. built networks of radio towers in Maryland. It leased land in a rural/agricultural conservation zone and planned to build a 300-foot radio tower there. Shore asked the Talbot County Board of Appeals for a special exception to build the tower and a variance to make the tower 300 feet. The zoning ordinance permitted antenna towers in rural/agricultural conservation zones as a special exception if they were not within three miles of any other tower in the county, and if they did not create more hhrmful effects at that particular location than they would elsewhere. The ordinance also limited communications towers to 200 feet. The board could grant variances if the variance would not harm the public's health, safety or welfare, if there were special conditions present not created by the applicant, and if the ordinance's enforcement would create undue hardship for the applicant. At a hearing, Shore presented evidence the tower would not present any safety hazards, environmental harm, negative impact to property values or unnecessary burden to public services. Shore also pointed out that several other towers in the county exceeded the 200~foot limit. In addition, it claimed the I ! I I I '1 i I I I i I I I I ! I I I