Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/05/2003

Home

Page 6 -- April 25, 2003 436 The board raised several concerns related to the height above ground and other aesthetic considerations. The members decided the project would call for unsightly protrusions on the face of the hotel's fiat wall and they would be too visible. The other significant concern was the closeness of the protrusions.to the ground. Finally, on Feb. 13, 2002, the permit was formally denied. The board prepared a five-page written notice detailing the views of the board's opinion of the aesthetic shortcomings of the plan. Nextel sued, contending the board's decision violated important provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("TCA"). DECISION: Decision upheld. The board's decision was supported by substantial evidence' and did not violate the TCA. The board took the time to document ali of the concerfis of this project and the specific reasons for denial of the permSt application. The board's decision was not unreasonable discrimination among provid- ers of equivalent services because the Nextel proposal was significantly differ- ent from the others. Citation: Nextel Commtmications of the Mid-Atlantic [nc. v. City of Cambridge, U.S. District Court for the District Jbr the District of Massachusetts, No. 02- 10429-GA0 (2003). see also: Second Generation Properties L.P. v. Town of Pelham, 313 F. 3d 620 (2002). Frontage m Owner seeks to divide lot into two parcels Frontage requirements would not have been met MINNESOTA (3/4/03) -- O'Shea owned a 14,000-square-foot lot in a resi- dential district comprised predomi.n, antly of single-family homes. In 1999, O' Shea applied for a minor subdivision to divide the property into two parcels of 7,882 square feet and 6,495 square feet. The former would have 60 feet of frontage. The latter would have 50 feet of frontage. The city planning department decided to recommend denial of the applica- tion because one of the new lots would have less than the required 60-foot' minimum frontage. Here, the department opined the project would be detri- mental to the large-lot characteristic of the district. The planning commission denied the application on these grounds. The decision was affirmed by the zoning and planning committee and the city council. Finally, the mayor approved the denial. O' Shea contended the relevant statute was impermissibly vague. The stat- ute provided that "reverse frontage l~ts, those platted in reverse orientation to the rest of the block, [we]re not permitted." O' Shea pointed out one lot was on a corner, and there was a question as to which way the house was situated. O'Shea then sued, claiming the denial was unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious. O'Shea also raised due process and equal protection issues. The lower court agreed the statute was impermissibly vague because the