Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/02/2006

Home

Page 8 -October 10,2006 ZB. zoning restriction as applied to its property interfered with its reasonable use of the property, considering the unique setting of the property in its environment. DECISION:Aftinned. The evidence did not demonstrate any uniqueness in the property, which was required for a finding of unnecessary hardship, or that the zoning restric- tion interferred with reasonable use of the property. The record did not show that the proposed site was different from any other property in the rural residential district. Rather, the record merely showed that the proposed site was large, difficult to develop because of its topography and relatively isolated location, and ideally suited to Green Mountain's needs be- cause it could provide a buffer zone as required by applicable ATF regulations. However, these factors alone did not distinguish Green Mountain's pro- posed site from any other rural land in the area. Ultimately, there was nothing in the property's size, configuration, or location, or that justified the variance. Telecommunications - Wireless provider believes tower is exempt from zoning law Township resolution generally recognizes public utility exemption Citation: Weckbacher v. SprintCom Inc., Court of Appeals of Ohio, 5th App. Dist., Stark Co., No. 2006 CA 00033 (2006) oHio (08/21/06) _ SprintCom Inc. obtained permits from Stark County to con- struct a telecommunications tower on leased residential property in Perry Town- ship. However, SprintCom did not obtain a zoning certificate, conditional use permit, or other zoning approval for the project from the township itself. Eventually, the township issued a stop-work order regarding the cell tower. SprintCom sued, arguing that it was a public utility exempt from township , zoning regulations. The court ruled in favor of the township. SprintCom appealed, arguing that Perry Township itself recognized the state's public utility zoning exemption in its Perry Township Resolution. DECISION: Affinned. The status of SprintCom as a public utility was not disputed. Generally, public utilities were exempt from zoning regulations. However, while the Perry Township Resolution mirrored state laws exempt- ing public utilities from zoning laws initially, it also included a section that addressed telecommunications towers and facilities specifically. Importantly, that section was designed to minimize "adverse health, safety, public welfare, or visual impact through buffering, sighting, design and construction, and reducing the need for new or additional towers." Ultimately, considering this specific language in the resolution, there was no merit to SprintCom's argument that its telecommunications tower was ex- empt from zoning regulations. 46 @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. ,:" . r. ' ;' t ." \: . \ t ; [ I ! I I i