Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/29/2002

Home

128 Page 4 August I0, 2002 Ciraffon: Network Towers LLC v. Board of Zoning Appeals Of Laporre County, Court of Appeals of £ndiana, 3rd Dist., No. 46AO3-OJlO-CV326 (2002). see also: RipIq County Board of Zoning Appeals v. Rumpke of Indiana Inc., 663 N.£.2d 204 (1996). Communications Towers -- Board issues special permit Neighbors complain environmental concerns' were not addressed NEW YORK (06/14/02) -- b4'earby residents sued their local planning board afters spec/al permit was issued for the construction of a telecornmunications tower. The residents pointed m environmental concerns and the fact no alterna- tive sites were considered for the project. The lower court found the planning board complied with state environ° mental requirements and remanded the matter to the planning board for find- hags of fact. The residents appealed, argu4ng there was no environmental statement filed, as required by the Nev~ York State Environmental Quality Review Act, and the board did not f'md sufficient facts to suppo~ its decision. They also contended the board made its decision without receiving any informatiOn regarding 'three areas of environmental concern. Further, the residents alleged defects in the published notice of the hear,'ngs. DECISION: ,~ffirmed. Since the planning board found no significant environmental concerns, there was no requirement to file an environmental impact statement. ' The contention the board did not receive-environmental information about the three areas was not raised in the original petition and, thus, could not be' raised on appeal. The court also noted there was no law. requiring the planning board to con- sider alternative sites. Finally, the court rejected the argument there were defects in the published notice. Here,. the residents had actual knowledge and actually appeared at the hearing. Cita~on: Fuss v. PJannibal T6wn Planning Board, Supreine C°urr of New York, App. Div., 4th Dept., No 653, CA 01.02299 (2002). see also: Matter of Krosxber v. Jackson, 263 A.D.2d 960. Construction of Dwelling -- Were two adjoining lots a single bUildable lot? Neighbor contests project, arguing building already existed on the lot FLOR_iDA (06/19/02)- The owners purchased a lot (lot 22) with the intention of building a single-family dwelling. Adjoining their lot was another lot (lot 21), with an emsting structure that extended onto the owners' lot. I i I I I I I I i I I I I I I -. I I I I