Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/2002

Home

August 25, 2002 -- Page 3 developed, whereas 3.8 million feet could be developed uhder rte old version. The court noted the true complaint was not that ~e property was be'rog re- zoned, but that it was being developed at all. This kind of development was to be expected in a thriving urban community. Citation.' Garden Hillx Civic Aaaociarion v. Metropolitan Azlanra Rapid Transit A~trhori~2, Court of Appeals of Georgia,. Jsr Div., No. AOZ~0702 (2002). nee alxo: DeKalb County. v. Druid [-Jills Civic Axsociarion, 502 S.£.2d 7t9 (1998). Communications Tower - Proposed site to be located nero' schools and athletic fields in residential area Special permit was denied after citizens opp°sed project ALABAMA (06/25/02) -- Amerfcan Tower intended to construct a communi- cations tower in a residential area within the City of Huntsv./tle. The proposed site was in the middle of an established residential area and near schools and athletic fields. In order to start construction, American Tower had to obtain a spec/at ex- ception and a variance. The special exception was required because the prop- ert¥ was zoned residential and the proposed use was not authorized. A vari- ance was needed because the tower would be 180 feet tail, exceeding the 1013- foot limitation in the area. The board of zoning appeals conducted a hearfng attended by citizens op- posed to the project. Other citizens presented a si=o-ned petition against the con- srruction of the tower. A realtor testified she lost a potential buyer of her own residenc~ due to acquired knowledge of the proposed tower. The board den/ed American Tower's application. American Tower appealed, contending the board's dec/sion was not sup- ported by substantial evidence' and the board should not have considered gen- eral evidence of the aesthetic impact of the tower and the effect on property values. The lower court found the board's decision was not supported by substan- tial evidence, and the board appealed.· DECISION: Reversed. The board made an appropriate decision. The board properly considered concerns about the effects on public health, safety, and welfare that could be caused by the tower construction. The board also was correct in considem~g the aesthetic impact on the Properties and prop, erty values. Cirariom' American Tower LP v. Ci~. of ~unrsville, ]Jrt U.S. Circuit Court of ,4ppe~ztx, No. 00-]5964 (2002) The i Jrt Ci;'cuir has jurisdic',.qon over Alabama. FJorida, and Georgia. see c~iao: ~' -. '" ' o ' ~_21or...mpa v. Ciu of ~=~,mrzvtlle, 643 So. 2d 102t (l~9o). ~