Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/11/2004

Home

Page 6 --January '25, 2004 To require the university to secure a zoning agency's approval· if it sought to modify the hotline's hours or operation was altogether unreasonable. Citation: Georgetown v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, District of Columbia Court of Appeals, No. Ot-A,4-IJ82 (2003). see also: Georgetown Residents Alliance v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 816 A.2d 41 (2003). see also: Watergate W. Inc. v. District of Columbia Board °f zoning Adjusrmwnt, 815 A.2d 762 (2003). Telecommunications .-- City bases permit denial on general aesthetic concerns .Fears becoming a Jbrest of antennas WISCONSIxN (. 12/18/03) -- Verizon Wixeless had trouble providing cell phone service along a stretch of busy road. A nearby church in an area zoned Institu- tional, but largely used residentially, was willing to allow an antenna to be built in its backyard. The antenna would be 70 feet high, 9.5 inches in diam- eter, and be disguised as a flagpole. . The prop0s, ed antenna would increase Ver/zon's cgverage along the road t¥om 37 percent Of the area to 95 percent. Two alternative locations, one a high school and the other a couotry club, both of which the city planning 9ommis- sion preferred, were ai~aiyzed iSut deemed unsuitable. An an?enna in one of these locations would have"provided oniy 72 percetit coverage ~md interfered with other area antennas~ The city planning· commission denied the permit. The commission, based its decision on general aesthetic concerns for the area. " · Verizon sued, and the court ordered the City to issue the permit.- The city appealed. " DECISION': Affirmed. The,city could not deny the permit. · · The:only evidence bearing on aesthetic'concerns was the testimony of three or four residents who stated they. didTM t' like tetecommunicati'on poles in gen'- era/. However, they did not state they would object to a flagpole i'n the church's backyard. Generalized aesthetic concerns did not justify permit denial. Even the commission seemednot tO take this evidence seri6usly, as the city testified it did not base its decision on local opposition to. visual intrusion. Several commissioners invoked "slippery slope" fears based on aesthetic concerns. They worried that if they approved the application, the city would be soon covered by a forest o'f telecommunications towers. However, such a sce- nario seemed very unlikely. 112 your subscriptSon ONL~N-E ar www. quinlan.com t