Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2008
The Supreme Court declined to hear a case last week filed by the neighbors of a lot with four 190-foot ham radio towers in Poolesville, bouncing the four-year legal battle back to the county’s judicial system.
Two neighbors of the 44-acre Sugarland Road property, Thomas Burruss and Alan Gaunoux, filed the lawsuit in August 2004 against John Evans of Clarksburg, a ham radio enthusiast who bought the lot to support his hobby, according to published reports and an online state court records database. The neighbors appealed to the Supreme Court when the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled last year that adjacent property owners are not required to be notified when a neighbor receives a routine building permit.
‘‘While it’s disappointing, it’s not surprising given the sheer volume of cases they receive,” said James Parsons, the neighbors’ Rockville-based attorney.
The neighbors have said that the towers are an eyesore that could negatively affect property values and look out of place among the rural lots. Gaunoux did not return requests for comment. Burruss sold his property in 2006.
But Evans, who said he has spent $160,000 in legal fees, was within his rights to build the towers and followed the proper procedures, said his Rockville attorney, Steven Van Grack.‘‘As a matter of law, the towers were constructed legally,” he said last week.
The county permitted the towers as an allowable accessory use, much like a swimming pool, detached garage or shed, according to county Board of Appeals documents and published reports.
The neighbors went to the Board of Appeals on Aug. 30, 2004, less than a month after construction began on the towers. The Board dismissed the neighbors’ complaint that the tower permit was issued in error in November 2004, saying the 30-day window of opportunity to appeal the permit had passed. The permit had been issued June 23, and the neighbors said they first learned of the project when construction equipment arrived on Aug. 5, 2004.
‘‘It’s really not the end of the matter. My neighbors are very upset with me for putting the towers up,” said Evans, who was licensed as a ham operator in 1988 and uses his high-powered towers to compete in broadcasting contests. ‘‘...It’s become a vendetta, I think.”
The case eventually wound up in the Court of Appeals, which upheld the Board’s original finding that the neighbors were too late to contest the permit but asked the appeals board to decide if not notifying the neighbors had denied them of their due process property rights. The board found that the neighbors did not have any due process rights to Evans’ land, the decision the neighbors ultimately took to the Supreme Court.
‘‘Due process was never envisioned to give landowners 30 days notice,” Van Grack said.Though the Supreme Court ruling was the end of the road for the administrative case, the neighbors also filed a civil lawsuit against Evans in Circuit Court in August 2004, which has been on hold until the administrative case concluded.
According to Parsons, the towers should not have been allowed as an accessory use. He said that Evans should have received a special exception from the county, citing a county law that was passed in 2005 in response to the controversy and the lack of regulations surrounding noncommercial ham radio towers.
The law requires that radio towers more than 65 feet tall receive a special exception, a process that involves public notification and comment. Towers built before Dec. 26, 2005, are grandfathered in.
