Notification of Zoning Hearing Examiner's Decision

COUNTY COUNCIL OF HARFORD COUNTY, MARYLAND

RICHARD C. SLUTZKY MIKE PERRONE, JR. CHAD R. SHRODES President District A District D JOSEPH M. WOODS PATRICK S. VINCENTI District B District E JAMES V. “CAPT’N JIM” McMAHAN CURTIS L. BEULAH District C District F

NOTIFICATION OF ZONING HEARING EXAMINER’S DECISION

DATE OF DECISION: May 3, 2016 HEARING EXAMINER: Robert F. Kahoe, Jr. RE: Zoning Appeal Case No. 5862 APPLICANTS: Chesapeake Broadcasting Corporation and Delmarva Broadcasting Company LOCATION: 1605 Level Road, Havre de Grace REQUEST: Extension andlor enlargement of a non-conforming radio tower in the RI Urban Residential District

Enclosed is an official copy of the Hearing Examiner’s decision relative to the above referenced case.

The Hearing Examiner’s decision shall become final MAY 23, 2016.

This decision shall be considered a recommended opinion to the Harford County Council, sitting as The Board of Appeals, if a written request for Final Argument before the Harford County Council is filed by the close of business on above date by the Applicant, Applicant’s Attorney, Opponents, People’s Counsel, or a person aggrieved who was a party to the proceedings before the Hearing Examiner. In addition, any Board Member, upon written notice to the Council Administrator, may request final argument.

COUNTY COUNCIL OF HARFORD COUNTY

f/I p

Mylia A. Dixon Council Administrator

Enclosure cc: ApplicantlAttorney; People’s Counsel; Department of Planning and Zoning

212 SOUTH BOND STREET • BEL AIR, MARYLAND 21014 • 410-638-3343 • 410-879-2000 • FAX 410-893-4972 www.HarfordCountyCounciI.com “An Equal Opportunity Employer” APPLICANTS: BEFORE THE Chesapeake Broadcasting Corporation and Delmarva Broadcasting Company ZONING HEARING EXAMINER

REQUEST: Extension and/or enlargement FOR HARFORD COUNTY of a non-conforming radio tower in the Ri Urban Residential District BOARD OF APPEALS

HEARING DATE: February 17, 2016 Case No. 5862

ZONING HEARING EXAMINER’S DECISION

APPLICANT: Chesapeake Broadcasting, Inc.

CO- APPLICANT: Delmarva Broadcasting Company

LOCATION: 1605 Level Road, Havre de Grace Tax Map: 44/ Grid: 2E / Parcel: 23 Sixth (6th) Election District

ZONING: Ri / Urban Residential

REQUEST: Extension and/or enlargement of non-conforming use and structures, pursuant to Section 267-2 1 of the Harford County Code, and a ruling/determination that guy wires and anchors are not subject to yard or setback requirements of Section 267-23 and 267-55B(1) and, if necessary, a variance pursuant to Section 267-55B(l) Table 55-1, of the Harford County Code, from any and all applicable setback and yard requirements in the Ri District.

TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The subject parcel is approximately 10 acres in size, located on Maryland Route 155 (Level Road) just outside the limits of the City of Havre de Grace. The parcel has approximately 130 feet of frontage on Level Road, with the bulk of the property being a relatively rectangular sized area beginning approximately 500 feet back from Level Road. Within the 130 foot wide frontage of the property is located an office building. To the rear, and within the remainder of the property, are located three broadcasting antennas and associated outbuildings. The parcel adjoins the Vulcan quarry, and is virtually surrounded by Vulcan owned property. The Applicant seeks to replace its existing 257 foot non-conforming broadcast tower with a new tower having a height of 467 feet. In addition to exceeding the height of the existing non conforming tower, the new tower will require new anchors and guy wires to be located within applicable setbacks. The Applicant requests expansion of the non-conforming use to increase the height of the tower and either an interpretation or a variance that it may install anchors and guy wires within those setbacks. Case No. 5862 — Chesapeake Broadcastingg InciDelmarva Broadcasting Co.

For the Applicant first testified Christopher Pate, who identified himself as a member of the Board of Directors of Chesapeake Broadcasting. The company was originally founded in 1948 to operate a radio station (WASH), and later began operating a second station (WHDG FM). Mr. Pate’s family owns the majority of the stock of Chesapeake Broadcasting, which has since divested itself of the broadcasting business but continues to own the subject property. The Co-Applicant Delmarva Broadcasting Company now operates the stations and is a tenant of Chesapeake Broadcasting. Delmarva has a contract to purchase the subject property, contingent upon receiving approval to construct the proposed tower. Next for the Applicant testified Robert Bloom, General Manager, Delmarva Broadcasting. Mr. Bloom explained that WXCY Radio is the ‘number one’ rated country music station in Harford and Cecil counties and New Castle, Delaware, which approximately represent its coverage area. The station is also required to run public service announcements. The station primarily broadcasts from the tower at the Havre de Grace Community Center. However, other users are also on that tower and WXCY must power down or switch its signal to the tower on the subject property during maintenance operations by any user. Because of its lower height, broadcasting from the tower on the subject property results in a loss of coverage. Approximately once each month a change in tower is required. Next testified Linda Plummer, a manager at the Harford County Department of Emergency Services (HCES). Ms. Plummer stated that HCES has a strong working relationship with WXCY, which broadcasts emergency information and announcements upon request by HCES. No other resources are available in this area which have the capacity of WXCY. HCES relies upon the radio station to get emergency information out to the public. Increasing the reach of the tower will be beneficial to Harford County. For the Applicant next testified Jeff Twilley, Director of Technical Services for Steinman Communications. Mr. Twilley has more than 25 years of experience in the broadcast engineering field, including design, build and maintenance activities. He is familiar with the subject property and the operations taking place there. For the most part, stated Mr. Twilley, the Delmarva Broadcasting Company utilizes the taller communications tower located at the Havre de Grace Community Center. When shutdowns of the Community Center tower are mandated, however, a crew must report to the site from Mr. Twilley’s Wilmington office in order to accomplish the shutdown and transfer operations to the subject property. Mr. Twilley described the proposed tower as triangular in design with three anchors. It will be unpainted, and similar in appearance to the towers which now exist on site. The proposed tower will not give the radio station the ability to increase its coverage area, although it will provide the station with the ability to service the coverage area which it now reaches from the Community Center tower. This chief benefit to be derived from the proposed tower is that the station will be able to consistently broadcast to its approved coverage area.

Federal Aviation Administration approval has been obtained for the proposed tower. Other permits are necessary and are pending. The witness sees no problem in obtaining all other necessary approvals.

2 Case No. 5862 — Chesapeake Broadcasting. Inc.[Delmarva Broadcasting Co.

Mr. Twilley stated that ‘from a structural and economic point of view’ it would be very hard to build a 457 foot tower and observe existing zoning setbacks. The anchors supporting the existing tower will be abandoned, left onsite and not disturbed. Those anchors are essentially buried concrete blocks. Mr. Twilley stated that the tower will cost approximately $250,000. He is aware of no objections received from any neighbor or other party. The anchors of the new tower are proposed to be approximately within 40 feet of the property lines. Mr. Twilley concluded that the tower as proposed cannot be built unless the requested setback variances are granted. Next, the Applicant testified Quentin Ellis, who identified himself as Director of Business Development for United States Tower Service, Ltd. Mr. Ellis has been employed in the communication tower business since 1974. His business erects and maintains communication towers. He was not involved in the design of the tower under discussion this case, although he is and has been retained by the Applicant.

The witness stated that it will take approximately two days to remove the existing tower using a mobile crane. Erection of the new tower will utilize a crane up to about the 200 feet height, and with the higher portion of the tower erected by use of a gin pole. All safety regulations and controls will be observed during the construction process. Next for the Applicant testified Sudhirk Khanna, a radio frequency engineer and a principal in Khanna & Guill, Inc., Consulting Engineers. Mr. Khanna is familiar with the proposed tower, and is an expert on radio frequency transmissions. He understands and is familiar with the coverage area of the proposed tower and its potential broadcasting strength. He understands that essentially the same coverage will be provided by the proposed tower as the Applicant now enjoys from the tower at the community center. Mr. Khanna stated that transmissions from the tower will be fully compliant with all FCC regulations. Next for the Applicant testified Joseph Cronyn, senior managing director of Valbridge Property AdvisorslLipman Frizzell & Mitchell. Mr. Cronyn was offered and accepted as an expert on impact of communication towers on neighborhoods, including property values. Mr. Cronyn is familiar with the site, and with the proposal now before the Board. Mr. Cronyn found nothing about the proposed tower which would adversely affect the surrounding properties. The tower will not generate noise, traffic congestion, nor have any observable impact on the neighbors and the neighboring properties. In order to check this initial finding, Mr. Cronyn determined actual sales values of the properties surrounding similar towers. After determining the sales histories of properties in neighborhoods affected by towers similar to the proposed tower, Mr. Cronyn concluded that the presence of the proposed tower, because it will blend into the background and occupy a very small part of the visual field, will have no negative impact on residential property values.

3 Case No. 5862 — Chesapeake Broadcasting. InciDelmarva Broadcasting Co.

Next for the Applicant testified Edward Steere, who identified himself as a land planner of twenty years’ experience. Mr. Steere was offered and admitted as an expert in land use planning and zoning. Mr. Steere is familiar with the subject property and its use. He identified the subject site as being essentially surrounded by land of Vulcan, much of which is an undisturbed buffer to the quarry operations. There are some wetlands through the center of the property. The tower which will be removed is sited at a somewhat lower elevation as compared to MD Route 155, and because of this the base is not visible from motorists on Route 155. The nearest dwelling is approximately 420 feet from the proposed tower, with the closet dwelling in the neighboring subdivision being about 700 feet away. Mr. Steere had taken and introduced into the record photographs showing the proposed tower when visualized from various locations in the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Steere’s conclusion is, after his review of the renderings, that the increased height should have no impact on any resident, especially in light of the other towers in the neighborhood which include the 511 feet high tower of the Community Center, various cell towers and the light stanchions along the 1-95 and Route 155 intersection. Mr. Steere also concluded that construction and operation of the tower is not subject to Harford County Development Regulations, Article XI, Telecommunications Facilities, as there is to be no increase in the base area of the tower its height can be increased without Code approval. Communication towers are also exempt from height restrictions. Mr. Steere gave his opinion that tower guy lines and anchors are not required to comply with setback requirements. These are considered secondary structures, such as driveways, letter vaults, etc., and should be allowed without a variance. Mr. Steere also believes that the site is unique and for that reason setback variances should be granted. The property is unique due to its limited size and unusual configuration, and it makes sense to continue this property as a location for a tower. If the requested variance is not granted the Applicant will suffer practical difficulties in that it will not be able to construct the tower as proposed. Further, the anchors themselves are underground and as a result should have no visual impact. Mr. Steere has reviewed the development regulations, and believes the proposed use will comply will all applicable guidelines and standards. Next for the Department of Planning and Zoning testified Anthony McClune, Chief of Current Planning Division. Mr. McClune believes that the Applicant can successfully comply with all applicable regulations and should be granted permission to enlarge its nonconforming tower.

4 Case No. 5862 — Chesapeake Broadcasting, Inc.fDelmarva Broadcasting Co.

Further, Mr. McClune and the Department believe that the use of the proposed tower will have no impact on surrounding property, and that the requirements of Section 267-91 are met. The use should generate no additional traffic or other impacts. The existing anchors are also located within the Natural Resources District. The proposed tower will require the elimination of guy wires which are attached to those anchors (but not the removal of the anchors themselves), which should reduce the existing impact on the Natural Resources District, according to Mr. McClune. The tower is about 2800 feet from Sion Hill, which is a historic structure. Mr. McClune, however, envisions no impact on Sion Hill. Mr. McClune believes that the guy wires and anchors are part of the structure of the tower and are required to observe applicable setbacks. However, the Department does believe that the property is unique because of its configuration and the amount of natural resources district onsite and that the variance should be granted. In support of this recommendation, the staff report states: ‘The Department does find that the property is sufficiently unique to warrant the granting of the variance to locate the guy wires and anchors within the required 80 foot side yard and rear yard setback and 200 foot use setback. The subject property is uniquely shaped with the existing antennas being located approximately 900 feet from Level Road. The subject property is also uniquely situated adjacent to an active quarry to the north. Vulcan Materials also owns several properties to the north and west that contain mature forest. These properties are unlikely to be developed for any residential uses. Furthermore, the subject property is constrained by a stream, nontitle wetlands and associated 75 foot Natural Resource District (NRD) buffer bisect the property from the southwest and to the northeast. The existing antenna, guy wires and anchors are located within the NRD as well as being located within the required setbacks. The Applicants have minimized their impact by proposing to locate the guy wires and anchors outside of the NRD for the new antenna.” Accordingly, the Department recommends approval of the requested enlargement of the nonconforming use tower and a variance to allow applicable setbacks be impacted by the guy wires and anchors associated with the tower. No evidence or testimony was presented in opposition.

APPLICABLE LAW: Section 267-21 of the Harford County Code provides: “The Board may authorize the extension or enlargement of a nonconforming use, with or without conditions, provided that:

5 Case No. 5862 — Chesapeake Broadcasting. Inc.fDelmarva Broadcasting Co.

A. The proposed extension or enlargement does not change to a less-. restricted and more intensive use. B. The enlargement or extension does not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the gross square footage in use at the time of the creation of the nonconformity. C. The enlargement or extension does not violate the height or coverage regulations for the district. D. The enlargement or extension would not adversely affect adjacent properties, traffic patterns or the surrounding neighborhood. E. The limitations, guides and standards set forth in Section 267-91, Limitations, Guides and Standards, are considered by the Board.” Section 267-11 of the Harford County Code allows the granting of a variance to the requirements of the Code: “Variances. A. Except as provided in Section 267-63.H (Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Overlay District, variances), variancesfrom the provisions or requirements of this Part] may be granted if the Boardfinds that: (1) By reason of the uniqueness of the property or topographical conditions, the literal enforcement of this Part ] would result in practical difficulty or unreasonable hardship.

(2) The variance will not be substantially detrimental to adjacent properties or will not materially impair the purpose of this Part] or the public interest. B. In authorizing a variance, the Board may impose such conditions regarding the location, character and other features of the proposed structure or use as it may deem necessary, consistent with the purposes of the Part] and the laws of the state applicable thereto. No variance shall exceed the minimum adjustment necessary to relieve the hardship imposed by literal enforcement of this Part ]. The Board may require such guaranty or bond as it may deem necessary to insure compliance with conditions imposed. C. If an application for a variance is denied, the Board shall take no further action on another application for substantially the same relief until after two (2) years from the date of such disapproval.

6 Case No. 5862 — Chesapeake Broadcasting Inc./Delmarva Broadcasting Co.

Section 267-91 “Limitations, Guides and Standards”, is also applicable and will be discussed below.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: The subject parcel has been the site of radio transmission towers since 1948. The bulk of the property, upon which the proposed tower is to be located, has approximate dimensions of 600 feet wide by 600 feet deep, and is improved by three radio transmission towers. One of these towers the Applicant proposes to replace with a substantially taller 467 foot tower. The property is also encumbered by significant non-tidal wetlands and is surrounded on three sides by parcels dedicated to the Arundel Company (now Vulcan) quarry operation, with these parcels constituting wooded buffer areas. The Applicant first requests permission to substitute a 467 foot tower for the existing 257 foot tower pursuant to the nonconforming use provisions of the Harford County Zoning Code. Those are set forth and addressed as follows:

A. The Board may authorize extension or enlargement of nonconforming use, with or without conditions, provided that a proposed extension or enlargement does not change to a less restricted or more intense use. While the tower will be higher and will have guy wires and anchors which will be greater in scope than those that currently exist on the site, the use itself will not be changed to a less restricted or more intense use. It will remain a radio transmission tower similar in design and construction, although somewhat taller, than that which now exists on the site.

B. The enlargement or extension does not violate the higher coverage regulations for the district. The proposed tower will not exceed 50% of the gross square footage in use at the time of the construction of the present tower.

C. The enlargement or extension does not violate the higher coverage regulations for the district. Coverage limitations will not be violated by the proposed tower.

D. Enlargement or extension will not adversely affect adjacent properties or traffic patterns of the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Steere gave his opinion that there would be no adverse impact on the adjoining properties or neighbors. In fact, there are few residential neighbors close to the subject parcel, and those neighbors should be impacted only to a very minor extent by having the top part of the tower within view. Other towers are in the neighborhood, however, including the extensive set of towers along the 1-95/Level Road interchange. The impact of the proposed tower, accordingly, should be negligible.

7 Case No. 5862 — Chesapeake Broadcasting, Inc.IDelmarva Broadcasting Co.

E. The limitations guideline and standards set forth in Section 267-91 are considered by the Board.

The consideration set forth in that Section are addressed as follows: (1) The number ofpersons living or working in the immediate area. The proposed tower should have no impact on the number of people living and working in the area. The sole purpose of the proposed tower is to allow the Applicant to maintain its broadcast signal within its licensed broadcast area. (2) Traffic conditions, including facilities for pedestrians such as sidewalks and parking facilities, the access of vehicles to roads; peak periods of traffic, and proposed roads, but only if construction of such roads will commence within the reasonably foreseeable future. Only minimal traffic currently accesses the subject property primarily during times of routine maintenance and inspection. The construction of the proposed tower should not alter in any way the existing traffic flow to and from the subject property.

(3) The orderly growth of the neighborhood and community and the fiscal impact on the county. There will be no negative fiscal impact on the county. There should be no impact on the orderly growth and the surrounding community. (4) The effect of odors, dust, gas, smoke, fumes, vibration, glare and noise upon the use of surrounding properties. The proposed antenna should have no significant adverse impact on any of the surrounding properties. While the increased height of the tower will cause it to be more noticeable by some of the neighbors, it should be no more noticeable than some of the existing towers that now exist in the neighborhood. Neither the equipment compound nor the base of the tower will be visible from any direction because of existing screening and topography. (5) Facilities for police, fire protection, sewerage, wate,; trash and garbage collection and disposal and the ability of the county or persons to supply such services. The Harford County Sheriffs Office and Maryland State Police will provide police protection. There will be no water consumed nor sewerage generated by the proposed use.

8 Case No. 5862 — Chesapeake Broadcasting. Inc.IDelmarva Broadcasting Co.

(6) The degree to which the development is consistent with generally accepted engineering and planning principles and practices. The proposal is a nonconforming use having been on the site since 1948 which predates Harford County land use regulation. (7) The structures in the vicinity, such as schools, houses or worship, theaters, hospitals and similar places ofpublic use. Evidence supports a finding that there will be no adverse impact on any such surrounding use. (8) The purposes set forth in this Part 1, the Master Plan and related studies for land use, roads, parks, schools, sewers, water, population, recreation and the like. According to the Harford County Department of Planning and Zoning Staff Report, the proposal conforms to the intent of the 2012 Master Plan. (9) The environmental impact, the effect on sensitive natural features and opportunities for recreation and open space. There should be no impact on sensitive environmental features. The proposed anchors of the new tower will be located outside of the Natural Resource District on site. There are no public recreational facilities on site. The property does not serve an open space function. (10) The preservation of cultural and historic landmarks. The only historical landmark identified within the vicinity is Sion Hill, an historic structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Sion Hill is approximately 2,800 feet west of the proposed tower. The existing tower is visible from Sion Hill and the proposed tower will be visible from Sion Hill. However, the Department of Planning and Zoning indicates there should be no impact on that historical structure by the proposed tower. No evidence having been presented to the contrary, such a finding is adopted herein. Accordingly, it is found that the Applicant’s request to substitute a 467 foot high tower for its existing, nonconforming 257 foot tower is approved. The proposed tower will accordingly be allowed provided the Applicant receives either a favorable interpretation that required setbacks do not apply to the tower, or a variance is granted. The first of Applicant’s arguments, that the guy wires and anchors are not subject to setback requirements, is rejected.

9 Case No. 5862 — Chesapeake Broadcasting, Inc.[Delmarva Broadcasting Co.

The Applicant argues that the structure, which is supported by guy wires anchored by three buried concrete anchor blocks, is not subject to the parcels 80 foot required side yard setback and the 200 residential foot setback applicable on the Level Road side of the parcel. Applicant suggests that the three anchors are structures separate from the tower and: “...although the three anchors are structures, they are not the principal building or structure’.. .The anchors are ancillary structures. Therefore the anchors are not subject to the setback requirements.” (See Applicant’s post hearing brief at page 3.) This tower could not maintain a 467 foot height without its related guy wires and anchors. It simply could not exist without them and, accordingly, those features of the tower are not only necessary but are structurally integral to the tower itself. The tower, its guy wires and its anchors, form one structure. As such, anchors and guy wires are to be considered an integral part of it and they must comply with all setback requirements. Accordingly, Applicant’s requested interpretation is rejected. In the alternative, however, the Applicant requests a variance that the anchors and guy wires be allowed within applicable setbacks. A review of the site plan of the Applicant shows that the proposed three anchors will be as close as ten feet to the property lines, and well within the 80 feet required setback. Two anchors on the southerly side of the tower will also be within the 200 setback from adjacent residential lots. However, the site plan also shows that the existing tower on the south side of the property is itself within the 200 residential use setback as are two of its anchors. Indeed, one of the anchors appears to be within the 100 foot required setback on the southerly side of the parcel. The remaining tower on the northwest side of the parcel similarly has and will continue to have two anchors within the 80 feet side yard setback. The Applicant makes a cogent argument for the granting of a variance. There seems to be little question but that the subject property is unique. A review of the site plan indicates that the parcel appears to have been created for the specific purpose of hosting one or more radio transmission towers. It has little frontage on Level Road, with the bulk of the property being an approximate rectangular area to the rear, off Level Road and not visible to passers-by. The existing main tower is directly in the center of the property with two smaller towers toward the corners of the property. The property is also surrounded by buffer areas now maintained by Vulcan Quarries but which have been in existence since the beginning of the quarry operation, which long predates the construction of the radio transmission operation on the subject parcel in 1948. Furthermore, the property is impacted by a very significant natural resource district which runs generally from the northeast to the southwest corner of the property. The existence of the natural resource district, and the location of the three towers on site, would appear to eliminate virtually any other use which could be made of the subject parcel except for the hosting of broadcasting towers, broadcasting operations and associated broadcasting uses.

10 Case No. 5862 — Chesapeake Broadcasting. Inc.[Delmarva Broadcasting Co.

Not only is the property unique, but existing setbacks are impacted by the existence of the nonconforming radio towers which, together with their anchors, are well within existing setbacks. Accordingly, the functionality of setbacks is effectively negated by the existence within them of nonconforming towers, guy wires and anchors. Accordingly, it is found that the property is unique. However, uniqueness does not guarantee the right to a variance. The applicant must now demonstrate resulting practical difficulty or reasonable hardship, as required by section 267-11 of the Development Regulations. The well-known case of Anderson v. Board of Appeals, Town of Chesapeake Beach, 22 Md. App. 28 (1974) distinguished between a ‘use variance”, which changes the character of the zoning district and a “area” variance (height, setback, etc.), where there is a lesser burden of proving practical difficulty. Anderson held that in order for an owner to show practical difficulty to justify an area variance the following criteria must be met: (1) whether strict compliance with the requirement would unreasonably prevent the use of the property for a permitted purpose or render conformance unnecessarily burdensome; (2) whether the grant would do substantial justice to applicant as well as other property owners in the district or whether a lesser relaxation than that applied for would give substantial relief; and (3) whether relief can be granted in such fashion that the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and public safety and welfare secured. Addressing the first of the three considerations, it is found that the requirement that the Applicant maintain existing setbacks, which are as deep as 200 feet and as shallow as 80 feet, would prevent the use of the property for an otherwise permitted use, i.e., a broadcasting tower of 467 feet in height. It clearly has a right under the Harford County Development Regulations to replace nonconforming uses and it has been found above that nonconforming use requirements are quite easily met except for the impact upon side yard setback requirements. It is noted in support of this finding that setbacks are in fact violated at present by the two existing towers which will remain, and associated guy wires and anchors. In fact, at least one of the existing anchors is virtually as close to the property line as the anchors of the proposed tower. Accordingly, it is found that to insist upon the observance of existing setbacks will unreasonably prohibit the Applicant from the use of this uniquely designed and configured property for its obviously intended use, i.e., as a location for broadcasting towers. Further, it is found that granting of the variance will do substantial justice to the Applicant and that a relaxation of the standard will grant substantial relief. Furthermore, for reasons stated above, it is found that public safety and welfare will continue to be observed and secured by the granting of the variance and there will be no adverse impact.

11 Case No. 5862 — Chesapeake Broadcasting, Inc./Delmarva Broadcasting Co.

CONCLUSION: Accordingly, it is recommended that the requested extension or enlargement of the nonconforming use tower be granted; that the request that the guy wires and anchors be found not to be subject to yard or setback requirements be denied, and that a variance be granted from all applicable setback and yard requirements in this Ri Urban Residential District, subject to the Applicants obtaining all approvals and permits for the construction of the antenna.

Date: M~y3, 2016

Any appeal of this decision must be received by 5:00 p.m. on May 23, 2016.