Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/1997

Home

I I I I I I I I I Z,B. March 25, 1997 ' Page 5 tower would improve the performance of the public agencies, like the fire and police departments, that depended on radio transmission. The tower would be located more than three miles from any other tower in the county. Shore explained it picked that particular location because it had the highest elevation in the area, would serve the most useful purpose for Shore's network of towers, was lOcated near two dense residential areas and was next to a grove of tall trees that could block views of the tower. Several residents spoke in opposition to the project. Most said they feared a drop in property values. Others complained the tower's blinking lights would disturb the horses at local farms and create a general nuisance. Residents also said the tower would harm the community's rural character. The board denied Shore's requests for a special exception and a variance. It based its decision on a finding that a proliferation of towers would detract from the county's scenic views. Shore appealed. The court affirmed the variance denial but reversed the special exception denial. The court ruled the board improperly based its decision on the proliferation of towers in the area. It returned the matter to the board so the board would grant a special exception for the 300-foot tower. Evans, an opponent of the project, appealed the granting of the 'special exception. Shore appealed the court's affirmance of the variance denial, arguing it had satisfied the requirements for a variance. Shore claimed the Iand was a "uniquely ideal" place for a tower, and said it would suffer undue hardship if it lost the chance to build a tower that would satisfy its customers' needs. DECISION: Affirmed. The court properly returned the case to the board. The board should not have used the abundance of towers in the county as its reason for rejecting the special exception. The county council, when it passed the zoning ordinance, already decided a tower could receive a special exception if it met the proper conditions. The board overstepped its authority in deciding there already were too many towers in the county. Since Shore planned to build its tower more than three miles from the nearest tower in the county, all that remained for the board to decide was whether Shore's tower would cause greater harm at its planned location than at any other location in the county. The board never decided this question. Based upon the evidence presented before it, if the board had actually reached that question, it would have granted the special exception. Most of the opposition to the tower came from residents who felt property values would decline. The only solid evidence presented suggested no such decline would occur. The court also properly affirmed the board's variance denial. Shore did not demonstrate anything unique about the land that justified a variance. The needs of its customers were not relevant to the distinctiveness of the land, so the hardship Shore claimed was self-created. Schultz v. Pritts, 432 A.2d J319 (198!). Mossburg v. Montgomery County, 666 A.2d 1253 (1995).