Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/03/2018

Home

April 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 7 Zoning Bulletin cilities, it denies disabled persons an equal opportunity to live in the community of their choice." Regarding "reasonableness and neces- sity," the court found that the Hovey home was: "necessary to fulfill `IAG's mission to provide residential services to disabled adults in a community -based setting' "; and "reasonable" in that "it would plainly effectuate that mission," and "would further advance the integration of disabled individuals into the [City] community." Moreover, the court found those benefits "likely outweigh[ed] the potential costs of implementation," as the court found that the financial and administrative burden on the City was "negligible" and there was insufficient evidence of intangible costs to the neighborhood. See also: Oconomowoc Residential Programs v. City of Milwau- kee, 300 E3d 775, 13 A.D. Cas. (BNA) 681 (7th Cir. 2002). Special Exception Lessee of land applies for special exception to construct wireless communications tower Opponents of tower argue that lessee is not a "landowner" and thus cannot be a zoning "applicant" Citation: SBA Towers IX, U,C v. Unity Township Zoning Hearing Board, 2018 WL 910842 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018) PENNSYLVANIA (02/16/18)—Among other things, this case ad- dressed the issue of whether a holder of an option agreement was a - "landowner" such that the entity had standing to file an application for a special exception. The Background/Facts: Columbus Home Association ("Colum- bus") owned an 8.9-acre parcel of land (the "Property") in an R-1 zoning district in Unity Township (the "Township"). SBA Towers IX, LLC ("SBA Towers") entered into an Option and Land Lease Agreement ("Option Agreement") with Columbus for the lease of a 100-foot by 100-foot section of the Property, which would be used for the construction, support, and operation of a wireless com- 6 © 2018 Thomson Reuters