ILNews

Court reverses COA decision in zoning issue

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed that both the Board of Zoning Appeals of Evansville-Vanderburgh County and trial court were correct in denying the construction of a cellular tower that would be located too close to a residence under a county zoning code.

In St. Charles Tower, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Evansville-Vanderburgh County, 82S01-0702-CV-69, the state's highest court yesterday overturned the Court of Appeals ruling that found the BZA's decision to deny St. Charles the special-use permit was not supported by substantial evidence.

St. Charles Tower, which constructs and installs cellular tower structures, wanted to build a tower in Vanderburgh County, where the county zoning code required St. Charles to get a special-use permit and variance from a setback requirement in the zoning ordinance. The BZA voted to deny St. Charles' application for the permit, and the company withdrew its application for the variance.

After the denial by the BZA, St. Charles filed a petition for writ of certiorari, judicial review, and declaratory judgment to overturn BZA's decision. In March 2006, the trial court affirmed BZA's decision. The Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, citing the denial by BZA was not supported by substantial evidence and remanded for a hearing as to whether St. Charles was entitled to the variance.

St. Charles argued that "substantial evidence" in this case is different from that usually employed in Indiana zoning cases because this case is subject to the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The TCA states any decision by a state or local government to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence.

Justice Frank Sullivan wrote in the Supreme Court opinion that the substantial evidence definition in the TCA is the same under Indiana law. Although the court agreed with the Court of Appeals in its analysis of the legal effect of the TCA substantial evidence test on this case, the Supreme Court found that the test was not met here and there is substantial evidence in the record to support BZA's denial of St. Charles' application.

Even though the area where the cell tower was to be erected was zoned agricultural, it was still near residences in the area. The setback requirement in a subsection of the county zoning code applies to all zoning districts where cell towers are permitted, not just residential zones. Also, the BZA requires any applicant seeking a special-use permit for a cell tower has to show the tower will be at least 300 feet from the nearest residence or two feet for each foot of height for the tower, whichever is greater.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Thank you, John Smith, for pointing out a needed correction. The article has been revised.

  2. The "National institute for Justice" is an agency for the Dept of Justice. That is not the law firm you are talking about in this article. The "institute for justice" is a public interest law firm. http://ij.org/ thanks for interesting article however

  3. I would like to try to find a lawyer as soon possible I've had my money stolen off of my bank card driver pressed charges and I try to get the information they need it and a Social Security board is just give me a hold up a run around for no reason and now it think it might be too late cuz its been over a year I believe and I can't get the right information they need because they keep giving me the runaroundwhat should I do about that

  4. It is wonderful that Indiana DOC is making some truly admirable and positive changes. People with serious mental illness, intellectual disability or developmental disability will benefit from these changes. It will be much better if people can get some help and resources that promote their health and growth than if they suffer alone. If people experience positive growth or healing of their health issues, they may be less likely to do the things that caused them to come to prison in the first place. This will be of benefit for everyone. I am also so happy that Indiana DOC added correctional personnel and mental health staffing. These are tough issues to work with. There should be adequate staffing in prisons so correctional officers and other staff are able to do the kind of work they really want to do-helping people grow and change-rather than just trying to manage chaos. Correctional officers and other staff deserve this. It would be great to see increased mental health services and services for people with intellectual or developmental disabilities in the community so that fewer people will have to receive help and support in prisons. Community services would like be less expensive, inherently less demeaning and just a whole lot better for everyone.

  5. Can I get this form on line,if not where can I obtain one. I am eligible.

ADVERTISEMENT