Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/2017

Home

Zoning Bulletin March 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 6 Case Note: In its decision, the court also rejected several other arguments proffered by the County Office, County Board, and Rocketship in support of their position. Special Exception —Based on residential neighbors' opposition testimony to monopole, zoning board denies wireless company's special exception application Wireless company appeals, arguing substantial evidence did not support zoning board's decision Citation: Northeast Pennsylvania SMSA Limited Partnership v. Throop Borough Zoning Hearing Board, 2017 WL 56124 (Pa. Com,nw Ct. 2017) PENNSYLVANIA (01/05/17)—This case addressed the issue of whether a zoning hearing board erred when denying an application for a special excep- tion use. The Background/Facts: Northeast Pennsylvania SMSA Limited Partner- ship d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon") sought to construct a wireless com- munications facility with a 120-foot monopole in the Throop Borough (the "Borough"). Verizon sought to construct the facility and monopole in an effort to improve poor wireless service in portions of the Borough. In furtherance of that effort, Verizon leased land (the "Property") in the Borough's Light Industrial (I-1) Zoning District. The Property was located adjacent to residen- tial properties in a Residential Zoning District. In March 2015, Verizon filed a zoning permit application (the "Applica- tion") to construct a new communications facility, including a 120-foot monopole on the Property. Verizon also sought a special exception to allow construction of the 120-foot monopole. Section 507(3)(d) of the Borough's Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance") permitted "[r]adio and television trans- mission or receiving towers" by special exception in the Borough's I-1 Zoning District. The Borough's Zoning Hearing Board ("ZHB") held a hearing on the Application. At the hearing, Verizon presented expert testimony as to the planned construction materials and landscaping of the monopole, as well as the lack of alternative locations for the monopole to achieve coverage and reduce capacity issues. Several neighbors (the "Objectors") who owned resi- dential property near the proposed facility and monopole also testified. The Objectors expressed their concern that the facility and monopole would result in depreciation of their property values, and expose the neighborhood to noise © 2017 Thomson Reuters 5