Loading...
Drew Tower Letter 20100805.tif i DREW LAW FIRM 1555 WASHINGTON STREET - P.O. BOX 462 BLAIR, NEBRASKA 68008 PHONE: 402- 426 -2636 FAX: 402- 426 -2777 GREGORY P. DREW DAVID V. DREW GPDrew @huntel.net DVDrew @huntel.net i August 5, 2010 Geoffrey C. Hall Hall Law Offices P.O. Box 216 Blair, NE 68008 RE: Nonconforming Use Limited Extension Blair Telephone Company i Dear Mr. Hall: i This firm represents Elmer Adams in his opposition to Nonconforming use limited extension application submitted to the City of Blair by the Blair Telephone Company to permit the continued operation of a cellular telephone tower. The tower was previously operated pursuant to a conditional use permit that was issued by Washington County, which was honored by the City of Blair when the area was brought within its zoning jurisdiction. Mr. Adams owns the property directly north of the tower. This letter will outline our legal objections to the Nonconforming Use Limited Extension that we intend to raise at the August 10, 2010 City Council Meeting. On August 3, 2010 the Planning Commission passed a motion to approve the application for a term of 5 years based on the City administration' advice that this application conformed to Section 1208 of the City of Blair Zoning Regulations. This advice is an incorrect reading of the Regulations. 1. The tower is a nonconforming structure and not a nonconforming use, making Section 1208 inapplicable. 2. Section 1208, Paragraph 1 requires that the extension be temporary in nature. During the public hearing on this issue at the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant indicated that they ever intend to move the tower and cease operation of the tower. In fact, the applicant indicated that doing so would be cost prohibitive. Section 1208 is intended for a different type of situation. 3. Section 1208, Paragraph 1 requires that the use may be removed or discontinued without any alteration of the premises. Here, the requested use is the telephone tower. Obviously the removal of a 320' tower with three anchors would alter the premises. i !,I i i 4. Section 1208, Paragraph 6 requires that all other conditions and requirements of the current zoning regulations must be complied with in their entirety. The existing tower exceeds the maximum height, which is 150 feet. The existing tower also does not meet the setback requirements, which include the minimum yard requirements plus 1 foot per each foot of tower height. This tower does not meet this requirement. i In summary, the application by the telephone company does not meet the intent or technical qualifications of Section 1208. I ask that you discuss these issues with the City Administration and reconsider your position. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. I I i Sinc rely, David V. Drew I CC. City Council Members Phil Green, Assistant City Administrator Shawn Hanson, Blair Telephone Company I I i i i I