Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(=') <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />II <br />I <br />II <br />II <br />II <br />I <br />I <br />II <br /> <br />! <br />I <br />, <br /> <br />,I <br />Ii <br />Ii <br />Ii <br /> <br />ii <br />I! <br />II <br /> <br />~>~) <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />December 10, 20091 Volume 31 No. 23 <br /> <br />by the Kansas Public Utilities Act: ("KEPUA"); and (3) was <br />pre-empted by the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of <br />1978 ("PURPA"). The court held that the Amendment did <br />not violate the Contract Clause because the suhject mat- <br />ter of the contracts for the development of commercial' wind <br />farms-land use and electrical power-was heavily regulated. <br />Changes in the law altering the contractual obligations were <br />foreseeable. The court also held that the Amendment was not <br />pre-empted by KEPUA or PURPA. <br /> <br />Telecommunications Act-'- Town denies variance <br />and special permit applications for proposed <br />wireless communication tower <br /> <br />() <br /> <br />. . . <br />Carrier contends denial effectively pro~bits provision of <br />wireless services in violation of the Telecommuilications Act <br /> <br />Citation: OmnipoFnt Holdings, Inc. v. City Of Cranston, 2009 WL <br />3592399 (1st Cir. 2009) <br /> <br />The First U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Maine, Massachusetts, <br />New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island. <br /> <br />FIRST CIRCillT/RHODE ISLAND (11/03/09)-Under a Fed- <br />eral Communications Commission license, T-Mobile USA, Iric. ("T- <br />Mobile") operates-a digital personal communications service \Vire- <br />less network in Rhode Island. Omnipoint Holdings, Inc. ("Omnip- <br />oint") is a wholly owned subsidiary of T-Mobile. Omnipoint pro- <br />vides wireless service to customers through a network of antennae <br />mounted on, towers or other structures. <br />At some point, Omnipoint determined that signal levels around a <br />main road in the city fell below Omnipoint's self-imposed minimum <br />signal strength for in-vehicle coverage. Omnipoint determined that <br />in order to remedy this coverage gap, it needed to mount antennae <br />on a structure that was at least 90 feet in height. Omnipoint identi- <br />: fied potential sites. Ultimately, Omnipoint had three options: one of <br />two sites at a country club in the city, or land .on property of a lo- <br />cal church. Negotiations with the country club's owners failed. The <br />church agreed to lease raw land to Omnipoint to construct a 90- <br />foot tower disguised as a flagpole. <br />. Because the proposed pole was not in conformance with the <br />city's zoning ordinances, Omnipoint applied for a variance and <br />. special permit. <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />67 <br />