Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/01/2007

Home

\. ,. i L " " I Ii 1: I: Ii I' [f I: I' Ii I, I! i: j, Ii U Ii II Ii 11 " )1 i L , \: " Ii I ~ ,: Ii ! I ! j I I. 1: .,.:"~;:~\ Ii )' .I '--.... i( )' -.::...--:" i; I. !' II il .11 II II 11 ;1 I' I, :) ii H I! i(~.) October 1, 20071 Volume 1\ No. 19 Strevens filed a complaint in court challenging the board's decision as arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable. A trial court reviewed the evi- dence in the board's record and concluded that Nextel had produced . "competent, credlble and reasonable expert testimony" before the board that was not refuted by Strevens. The complaint was dismissed, and Strevens appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. Strevens contended that the board failed to apply a requirement in the ordinance reqUiring Nextel to demonstrate that its facility could not be . located on the site of an existing tower. Specifically, the township's ordinance provided that "[n]o new tower [should] be permitted unless the applicant [had] demonstrate[d] ... that there [was] no existing tower or structure available that [could] accommodate the'applicant's antenna via collocation." While Nextel admitted that its first choice of location was the munici- pal fire department site where a tower already existed, contrary to Strev- ens' assertions, there was extensive testimony introduced to the board regarding size constraints at the fire department site and the inability of Nextel and the property owner of that site to come to an agreement. Thus, the appeals court found no basis to overturn the board's conclu- sioq that Nextel had complied with the requirements of the ordinance regarding collocation of its facility. . With regard to Strevens' argument that the board's findings wer~ not' supported by the evidence, the court noted that "it suffice[d] to say that Strevens' real objection [was] to the conclusions the board drew from the evidence, not the lack of evidence." Because the board's decision was supported by the evidence and it had not acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably, the lower court had correctly found in its favor. The decision was affirmed. See also: Coventry Square v. Westwood Zon,ing Ed. of Adjustment, 138 N.J. 285, 650 A.2d 340 (1994). Approval-Condo buyer claims broker lied about beach access to make sale Broker says clause in contract supersedes alleged oral representation Citation: Stockton v. Mustique, L.L.C.i 2007 WL 2480244 (S.D. Ala. 2007) ALABAMA (08/28/07)-Stockton entered an agreement with Mus- tique, LLC, to purchase a condominium unit in a development situ- ated near a beach in the city of Gulf Shores. The property was north 5 79