Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/10/2006

Home

June 10, 2006 -- Page 5 property line distance requirement but not from the ordinance's setback and landscaping requirements. Cingular planned to locate the towers near the Loui- siana Tech University campus. Roudalcis, a resident of Ruston, sued the board. He argued that the ordi- nance lacked any standards for ~anting a variance. The court ruled in favor of the board. Roudakis appealed, arguing that no legal considerations supported the variances and that the towers had to be removed. DECISiON:Affirmed. The variances were ~anted correctly. Several board members testified that they considered the safety, aesthetic, and technical needs of Ruston's popula- tion in ganting the variances. Those board members also stated that they considered Cingular's right to have a fair chance of competing in the area. It was clear that the board's considerations reasonably related to the public health, safety, and general welfare. A licensed engineer who spoke to the board stated that the two new towers' design was virtually infallible. In addition, a Cingular engineer stated that no cellular towers that were con- structed similarly to the Ruston towers failed during recent hurricanes in neighboring states. The engineer also explained that the towers were needed because consis- tent extraordinary growth in cell phone usage among Louisiana Tech students had resulted in declining service. The court found that the absence of variances for all facets of the cellular tower ordinance did not preclude building the towers, and that the board did not act arbitrarily or capriciously. The board clearly approved constructing the towers, and the ganted variances were intended to allow building them. Be- cause the board did not act arbitrarily or unreasonably, the court could not overturn its decision. see also: Valle v. Gayle Oil Company Inc., 646 So.2d 859 (2004). see also: TSC Inc. v. Bossier Parish Police Jury, 878 So.2d 880 (2004). Lots m Property. owner claims lot is buildable under grandfather clause County argues property does not meet definition of 'lot' Citation: Re: Holzsrove's application for a variance, Court of Appeals of Minnesota, No. A05-1017 (2006) MIN2xlES eTA (04/11/06) -- In June 2003, Holz~ove applied for a permit to build a house on his lakeshore property, known as Outlet A, in the Town and Country Estates subdivision. The subdivision was created in 1973; under a 1971 zoning ordinance, Outlet A was not a buildable lot. The ordinance, which required lakeshore lots to have at least I00 feet of lakeshore frontage, was amended in 1980 to include the relevant grandfather © 2006 Ouinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 175