Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/2005

Home

Page 4-- February 25, 2005 The County of Hawaii Planning Commission determined Voicestream was required to apply for special permits. Voicestream sued, challenging the comm/ssion's contention that special permits were required. The court ruled in favor of the commission. It found Voicestream's planned structures did not fulfill the legislative intent of the relevant law, wh/ch was passed at a time when landlin~s were still the major way of providing communications. Voicestream appealed, arguing its plan clearly fulfilled the relevant legisla- tive intent. DECISION: Reversed. The structures in the instant case, namely the false chimney and the garage housing accompanying equipment, were consistent with the legislature's intent. According to the relevant law, the le=~slature s intent was to "better serve farmers and others residing in agricultural lands." Importantly, there was no difference in function between the landlines available when the law was passed and modem wireless communications equipment. Both served the same pur- pose of allowing corru-nunication through the telephone. By allowing Voicestream to erect the structures, Voicestream would be able to provide wireless coverage for farmers and others residing in agricultural lands who were then without access. There was nothing in the record to indicate that the presence of the con- cealed antenna and equipment would undermine the land-use law's objectives of protec.ting and conserving natural resources and fostering intelligent, effec- tive, and orderly land allocation and development. see also: Curtis v. Board of Appeals, 978 P. 2d 822 (1999). see'also: Barnett v. State, 979 P. 2d 1046 (1999). Variance -- Board den/es variance, landowner builds anyway ' After second variance denied, landowner claims equal protection rights violated Citation: Harris v. Board of Adjustment of the City of Fort Worth, Court of Appeala" of Texas, 2nd Dist., Fort Worth, No. 2-04-061-CV(2005)' TEXAS (01/06/05) -- Hams applied for a variance from the city's 10-foot side yard requirement. He' planned to add an enclosed garage to his home that would encroach six feet into the side yard, leaving only a four-foot side yard on his lot. Harris' lot was exposed to the public, and abutted a busy street. The Board of Adjustment of the City of Fort Worth denied the variance. Although the variance was denied, Hams began construct/on. After finish- lng the project, he requested a variance to allow him to continue using the garage. This request was also denied. t42 © 2.005 Quinlan Put2tishing Group. Any reproduction is prchibite0. For more information please call (617) 542-0048.