Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/01/2005

Home

58 Page 8 -- OctOber 25, 2005 three parcels, and Victory referred to the Property with one address. Thus, Victory itself treated tl{e entire property as one collective parcel. Given this evidence and the fact that Victory could easily relocate the tent and mobile structures to parcels four and six, it was clear the use and condition of the property constituted a.public nuisance. see also: Action Apartment Association v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 94 Cal. ApP. 4rh 587 (2001). see also: Calprop Corporation v. City of San Diego, 77 Cal. App.4rh 582 (2000). Variance -- Board denies variance bemuse of plan to put telecommunicafiohs tower on town land Plan had never actually been enacted Citation: Chester Rod and Gun Club [nc. v. Town of Chester, SUPreme Co[~rr of New Hampshire, No. 2004-857 (2005) NEW HAMPSHIRE (09/02/05) --Town of Chester voters approved a war- rant article that authorized town selectmen to lease certain town land so a telecommunications tower could be built on it. However, the selectmen failed to do so. Two years later, Chester Rod and Gun Club Inc.' entered into a lease with a telecommunications company to build a tower on its land in a residential area. However, under the zoning code, a variance was necessary. After a hearing on the matter, the town's zoning board of adjustment denied the variance. The club sued, and the court ruled in its favor. The town appealed, arguing the variance was against the public interest. DECISION: Affirmed. The board incorrectly defined the relevant public interest. Rather than examining whether the variance would conflict unduly with. .basic zoning objectives by altering the essential character of the neighbor- hood, or by threatening the public health, safety, and welfare, the board relied upon the effect the variance would have on the town's incipient plan to buLId a telecommunications tower elsewhere. The relevant public interest was set forth in the applicable zoning ordi- nance. The record showed the purpose of the ordinance creating the residen- tial zone where the club's property was located was to "recognize the unique scenic, historic, rural, and natural characteristics" of this part of ~e town, "while encouraging development ... in a manner which will protect these important characteristics." This was not the public interest the board used in making its decision. see also:' Simplex Techn. ologies v. Town of lVewingron, 766 A.2d 713 (2001). see also: Harri~gron v. To~4,~. of Warne~; 872 A. 2d 990 (2005). © 2005 Quinlan Put~lisning Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more iniormation please call (617) 542.0048.