Laserfiche WebLink
<br />May 10,20091 Volume 31 No.9 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />tions were meant to address;" and (2) they did so "in a way that. directly C------\ <br />injure[d]Sheppard.".Sheppard therefore had standing to challenge the ) <br />variances granted to McGarrell. <br /> <br />See also: Dwyer Dwyer v. 'Gallo, 73Mas~. App.Ct.292, 897 N.E.2d <br />612 (2008), reviewdenied, 453 Mass. 1103, 901 N.E.2d 138 (2009). <br /> <br />See also: Standerwick v. Zoning Bd. 'of Appeals of Andover, 447 Mass. <br />20, 849 N.E.2d 197 (2006). <br /> <br />Case Note: The court remanded the matter back to the lower court <br />to determine the legality of the McGarrell's variances. <br /> <br />Preemption~Town ordinance pr<;>vides <br />for regulation and siting of wireless <br />telecommunications facilities <br /> <br />Wireless carriers argue ordinance is preempted by federal <br />Telecommunications Act <br />,.---.... <br />. Citation: New York SMSA LfJ. Partnership v. Town of Clarkstown, ( ) <br />2009 WL 782971 (S.D. N.Y. 2009) <br /> <br />NEW YORK (03/36/09)-Chapter 25t of the town's Code provided <br />for the regulation and siting of wireless telecommunications facilities. Its <br />purpose was "to encourage the siting of wireless telecommw:iii::ations fa- <br />cilities in nonresidential areas on existing structures,'; and to address the <br />"safety, visual and aesthetic aspects... of facilities... ." To achieve that <br />purpose, Chapter 251 established a multi-state application process. <br />Various wireless telecommunication carriers (the "Carriers") filed a <br />legal action in federal court, challenging Chapter 251. The Carriers con- <br />tended that Chapter 251 was preempted by the f'explicit text" of the fed- <br />eral Telecommunications Act of 1996, as well as by the "implied intent <br />of Congress." Among other things, the Telecommunications Act regulat- <br />ed radio frequency interference, technical standards for wireless technol- <br />ogy, and radio frequency emissions. It also forbid localnigulations frbm <br />prohibiting or having the effect of prohibiting the provision of interstate <br />or intrastate personal wireless services, but otherwise did not "limit or <br />aff~ct" local authority with respect to zoning and land use issues. <br />Specifically, the Carriers argued that Chapter 251 imposed certain <br />"technical and operational standards" that were preempted because fed- <br />eral- regulation occupied the field. They challenged: (I) Chapter 251's (\ <br />requirement that applicants submit information pertaining to Radio ~ <br />Frequency ("E-F") interference by proposed facilities; (2) its preference <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />@2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />80 <br />