Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/2003

Home

7,.g. December 24, 2002 -- Page 5 between renewing an existing permi't and issuing a new one. It. claimed an existing permit could be renewed for a nonconforming sign, but a new permit could not be issued. It also argued Hobbs had abandoned or discontinued the use by leaving the sign blank' for over 12 months. DECISION: Reversed. Hobbs was entitled to his nonconforming use. It was clear the concept of grandfathered nonconform/ng use related to the property and the use thereof,, not the type of Ownership interest in the property. Hobbs' fight to use the sign did not become illegal..simply because the entity that applied for a permit to use the sig'n changed. Generally, the temporary cessation of a nonconforming use did not lead to abandonment of'the nonconforming use. Abandonment occurred when the Iand- owner intentionally and voluntarily gave up further nonconforming use of the property. · Hobbs began' to apply fOr a permit at the conclusion of KOA's lease'. Hobbs was actively pursuing a new permit from the county. The county's permission was necessary for the DOT application. Hobbs stopped leasing the sign while he was attempting to obtain a new permit because he could not properly con- tinue advertising on the sig~n until a new permit was obtained. Hobbs had no intention to abandon his right to advertise on the sign. Citation: Hobbs v. D~partment of Transpot'tation, Court of Appeal of Florida, 5th Dist., No. 5D01-3790 (2002). see also: Peters v. Thompson, 68 So.2d 58I (t953). see also: Crandon v. State, 28 So.2d 159 (1946). Telecommunications Tower -- Omnipoint refused access to site telecommunications tower Company sues, arguing town violated Telecommunications Act PENNSYLVANIA (11/07/02) -- To repair a gap in its.-cellular telephone cover- age, Omnipoint wanted to place an antenna at the municipal building in the Town- ship of Nether Providence. The antenna would be concealed within a.flagPole. Because of the township's, zoning ordinance, there was no pri. vate.land-.within the township available for development' as sought by Omnipoint. However, when Omnipoint attempted tO lease the municipal building site, the township refused the offer. Onmipoint sued, contending the zoning scheme, along with the. township's refusal to lease the municipal building site, violated the. Telecommunications Act of 1996. Omnipoint claimed the TOwnship was "prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.." Onmipoint argued it Was entitled-to damages and a court order forcing the township to lease the municipal building site. The township countered a municipality that declined to negotiate and enter into a lease with a telecommunications provider did not violate the Telecom, munications. Act, even when the applicable zoning ordinance !eft no property where the proposed tower could be bUilt without a variance. The township 111