Laserfiche WebLink
March 25, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 6 Zoning Bulletin <br />"continue" to the present only if lots 113 and 114 remained merged at all <br />times since 1989. On the other hand, the grandfathered status of the <br />nonconforming lot created by merger in 1989 could be understood, as <br />advocated by Reece, to "continue" to the present if the lot that existed in <br />1989 was identical to a lot that existed today. <br />To resolve that ambiguity, the court considered relevant zoning objec- <br />tives and purposes. The court concluded that the stricter interpretation of the <br />SZO advocated by Day promoted land use conformities better than the more <br />relaxed interpretation advocated by Reece. Construing the SZO "to preclude <br />a resurrection of the grandfathered status of the again -merged lot would be <br />in harmony with the purpose of grandfathering," found the court. Grandfa- <br />thering, noted the court, is designed to protect rights anticipated at the time <br />property is purchased. When Reece acquired lots 113 and 114, each lot was <br />nonconforming and not grandfathered, and thus neither could be developed <br />without a variance. Because Reece did not have the right to develop the lots <br />without a variance when she acquired them, construing the SZO to deny her <br />that right today did not divest her of anything, concluded the court. <br />See also: Farley v. Town of Lyman, 557 A.2d 197 (Me. 1989). <br />Telecommunications —Town finds <br />proposed monopine cell tower <br />meets ordinance definition of <br />"Concealed Wireless <br />Communications Facility" <br />Neighboring property owners argue giant <br />monopine was readily identifiable as cell tower,. <br />requiring more intensive review <br />Citation: Fehrenbacher v. City of Durham, 2015 WL 426058 (KC. Ct. <br />App. 2015) <br />NORTH CAROLINA (02/03/15)—This case addressed the issue of <br />whether a proposed cellular tower to be concealed as a monopine would be <br />"readily identifiable" as a cellular tower under the town zoning ordinance, <br />thus requiring a more intensive permitting process. <br />The Background/Facts: In January 2012, Philip Post & Associates, <br />Inc., acting on behalf of SprintCom, a telecommunications conglomerate <br />(Philip Post and SprintCom are hereafter collectively referred to as <br />"SprintCom"), sought approval from the City of Durham (the "City") to <br />construct a 120 -foot -tall cell tower. The cell tower was to be constructed on <br />a leased portion of a five -acre lot owned by the Greek Orthodox Community <br />of Durham. Also on the property was the St. Barbara Greek Orthodox <br />Church of Durham. The property was in an area zoned Rural/Residential. <br />4 © 2015 Thomson Reuters <br />