Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/2003

Home

112 Page 6 -- December 24, 2002 Z.B. asked'the court to dismiss Omnipoint's lawsuit. DECISION: Omnipoint's lawsuit dismissed. The township did not violate the Telecommunicatmns Act. Because the township's refusal to lease its own property did not constitute. an exercise of zoning or regulatory powers, the township had no duty under the Telecommunications Act to negotiate or ultimately lease portions of municipal property to Omnipoint for the purpose of installing an antenna. Because a lease required a mutually acceptable agreement between parties entering a contract, a lease could not constitute a form of zoning or regulation governed by the Telecommunications Act. However, if Omnipoint were to purchase or lease suitable property from a private entits, and apply for a variance or special exception, Ommpoint could seek judicial relief if the township denied the request. Citation: Omnipoint Communications Enterprises v. Township of Nether Providence, U.S. Dist. Court for the Eastern 'Dist. of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 99-3974 (2002). see also: Omnipoint Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Pine Grove Township, 181 F. 3d 40? (1999). see also: Omnipoint Communications Inc. v. City of Scranton, 36 F. Supp, 2d 222. (4999). Annexation -- City seeks to annex portions of county County objects, claims proposed mitigation measures not followed GEORGIA (I1/12/02) -- The City of Senoia sought to annex a portion of Coweta County. The county sued, claiming the proposed mitigation measures were not followed by the city. The mitigation measure stated "all lots developed along the common bound- ary of the city and county shall have a minimum lot. size of 1.6 acres." The.plat submitted by the city to show compliance with the mitigative measures' showed a 50-foot buffer along the boundary between the city and county. The trial court concluded since there were no deve!oped lots on the bound- ary, there was no violation of the mitigative measure. The county appealed, contending since the buffer was not a lot, it could not be considered to comply with the mitigative measure. DECISION: Affirmed. The annex was proper. The county's argument ignored the:actual language Of the mitigative mea- sure. The mitigative measure required: all lots "developed" on~ the boundary between the city. and the county be at least 1.6' acres.in size. The buffer was not Mot, and under the ordinance it could never be developed, Consequently, there were no developed lots on the boundaw. Citation: Coweta County v. City of Senoia, Supreme Court of Georgia, No. S02A0959 (2002). see also: Horwitz v. Well, 569 S.£.2d 515 (2002).