Opinion ID: 2197992
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Remaining Criteria

Text: Lastly, the petitioners argue that the trial court erred in ruling that the variance was consistent with the spirit of the ordinance, that it was not contrary to the public interest, and that substantial justice would be done in granting the variances. We disagree. Based upon the record of the ZBA hearings, we conclude that sufficient evidence supports these rulings. At the hearings, Omnipoint showed that the variance would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance or injurious to the rights of others because the tower would not alter the essential character of the locality or threaten the public health, safety or welfare. The evidence presented included that the tower would be reduced to 146 feet, would not have a light on its top, and would be screened from view on the ground with vegetative buffer and disguised at the top as a pine tree. The tower would be located at a point furthest from abutting properties on Hazelnut Drive, and would not generate noise, traffic or odors. A tower at this site would also serve the public interest in that it would alleviate a significant gap in coverage and would be used to provide service for at least two other wireless telecommunications companies to limit the need for any further towers. In addition, Omnipoint showed that substantial justice would be done in granting the variances because it was the only reasonable way to remedy an existing gap in coverage. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in concluding that the ZBA acted lawfully and reasonably in finding that Omnipoint met its burden of proving the required variance criteria. Affirmed.