01/06/05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Page 4 -- November ~, 2004 ZB-. The board unanimously denied Cellco's application for a permit to build the cell tower. Cellco sued, arguing the Telecommunicati0ns Act required the board ~o allow it to place a new tower in the center of town. DECISION: Judgment in favor of the town. It ,;vas apparent Cellco bad not made a good faith effort to find alternative locations for its tower. The town's zoning regulations required Cellco to provide substantial evi- dence that the facility could not be located in a non-residential zone because of technical necessity.. Since the board found that Cellco failed to comply with certain submittal requirements, Cellco's actions during hearings on the matter gave. the impres- sion it had not tried to find alternative sites. At the final h~aring, the board pointed out that a water standpipe located within the Orafton YVater District could provide adequate sisal coverage to meet Cellco's objectives and recommended continuing the heanng untkl after tine Water Disirict Board voted on whether to allow telecommunications towers on its facilities. However, instead of agreeing to the continuance as the board requested, Cellco stated it was not interested in further evaluating any alternative sites and requested the hearing be closed. Based on Cellco's reaction and lack of filings, the court determined the board acted reasonably in concluding Cetlco did not make a good faith effort to assess all alternative locations that could serve the targeted coverage areas. see also: Town of Amherst v. Omnipoint Com. rmmicatio~s EJ~terprises Inc., ] 73 F. 3d 9 (1999). Zoning Ordinance ~ Old sign ordinances found unconstitutional Court orders board to grant variance Citation; DeKalb County v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Supreme Court of Georgia, No. S04Ai579 (2004) GEORGL& (10/12/04) ~ In 2002, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. filed a variance applica- tion with the DeKalb County Board of Zoning Appeals. Wal-Mart sought per- mission to erect a sign on its property that was taller than that allowed under the sign ordinance. The board denied the application. WaI-Mart sued, ~ucguing unconstimtionai procedures led to the adoption of the county's 2001 and 2002 zoning ordinances. While the case was pending, the county enacted a new ordinance. However, the court ruled in Wat-Mart's favor and ordered the counE,,,' to allow che sign under a 1975 ordinance. It tbund there was an assurnp- don that ~he board had acted unconstitutionally in denying t[~e w'uriance. The ,:'ount,/appealed~ arguing the court should sot ha,/e ordered the board :c ~,r:mr :he ~:gn variance based on an assumption that it was following .'_he ~ 2004 "-.u¢man io~JDliSh.,ing }fO,Up. ~.ny 'eofoaucson s pronlblled. For note :niorma[ion sease ,:all ~617; 542-0048. 88