My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/03/2018
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2018
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/03/2018
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:30:54 AM
Creation date
5/3/2018 10:58:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
05/03/2018
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
685
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
April 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 7 ZoninQ Bulletin <br />Towers was "a landowner and a proper applicant under Section 107 <br />of the MPC and, thus, had standing to file the [special exception] <br />[a]pplication with the ZHB." <br />The court so concluded upon analysis of the language of the lease <br />option agreement between SBA Towers and Columbus. The court <br />found that, "[w]hile the Option Agreement in this case [did] not <br />specifically provide SBA Towers with an `exclusive easement,' the <br />Option Agreement [did] grant SBA Towers 'the right to enter the <br />[Property] to conduct tests and studies . . . to determine the suit- <br />ability of the [Property] for [SBA Towers'] intended use.' " The <br />court also found that the Option Agreement here required SBA Tow- <br />ers to "obtain any necessary governmental licenses or authorizations <br />required for the construction and use of' the proposed communica- <br />tions tower. The court concluded that such language made it "clear <br />that SBA Towers [was] more than just a potential leaseholder." <br />Rather, the court found that the Option Agreement specifically au- <br />thorized SBA Towers to exercise Columbus' rights as the owner of <br />the Property. <br />The court, however, went on to determine that evidence was insuf- <br />ficient to establish that SBA Towers was licensed by the Federal <br />Communications Commission ("FCC"), or that the proposed com- <br />munications tower would be in compliance with FCC standards. As <br />such, the court reversed the Court of Common Pleas' reversal of the <br />ZHB's decision to deny SBA Towers' special exception application. <br />See also: Tioga Preservation Group v. Tioga County Planning <br />Com'n, 970 A.2d 1200 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009). <br />Religious Rights Religious <br />youth camp challenges grant <br />of special exception to <br />neighbor dairy operation <br />Camp contends grant of special exception <br />violates its religious rights under federal and <br />state law <br />Citation: House of Prayer Ministries, Inc. v. Rush County Board <br />of Zoning Appeals, 2018 WL 414862 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) <br />INDIANA (01/16/18)—This case addressed the issue of whether a <br />8 ©2018 Thomson Reuters <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.