Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/05/2003

Home

Z.B. Apr-il 25, 2003 -- Page 5 the board's denial of the permit, and the board appealed. The decision was reversed, and the lower court was directed to review the board's decision again. The lower court then affirmed the board's denial because the reclamation plan submitted by Hoover was inappropriate. In 1996, the board conducted another hearing, and the permit was again denied. Here, the board noted the plan failed to provide acceleration lanes for trucks. The board also noted that Hoover intended to use water as fill rather than "nontoxic, nonflammable, and noncombustible solids." The board also noted the concerns of nearby residential areas and the negative impact on the health of nearby results. Hoover again appealed. Here, it argued the board's decision was arbitrary and based on an overall animosity towards the project. Hoover also noted that other reclamation projects had been approved and water-was considered a suit- able material for fill. Hoover pointed to other projects and a regular practice of ignoring certain specific conditions in the ordinance. DECISION: Affirmed. The board's decision was not arbitrary and capricious. The controlling stat- ute was clear and unambiguous in that water was not a suitable fill material. Hoover failed to provide any evidence of the alleged regu!ar practice of ignoring certain conditions in the zoning ordinance. Further, in the two in- stances when water was approved as an appropriate fill, no evidence was sub- mitted showing the ch'cumstances were similar to those of this case. Citatiom' Hoover Inc. v. Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals of Metropolitan Govertm~ent of ~V,:~shville and Davidxon Count); Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville, No. M2001-OO924-COA-R3--CV (2003). see also: Lewis v. Bowman, 8]4 S. W. 2d 369 (1991). Communications Towers -- Cambridge board denies permit for antennae on local hotel Wits there a Telecommunications Act violation ? MASSACHUSETTS (2/28/03) -- Nextel was licensed to provide wireless tele- communications services in areas of Massachusetts, including within the city of Cambridge. In order to service customers, Nextel installed antennae and other equipment within the service area. Nexte! determined the service in the eastern portion of Cambridge .was inconsistent. To correct this problem, Nextel proposed to install several anten- nae on the side of the .Royal Sonesta Hotel building. The building was located within, an area designated as a "plapned unit development district," where wire, less telecon'nnunications antennae'and related equipment were a permitted use, subject to the grant of a special perm_it by the planning beard.- On Sept. 4, 200t, Nextel appi~ed for a special permit for the installation of three an'ays, each containing four antennae, to be mounted on three sides of the 435