Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/04/1997

Home

Page 8- February 10, 1997 z,g. home-rule city, then it had to do so "with unmistakable clarity." see also: Dallas Merchant's & Concessionaire's Ass'n. ~: City of Dallas, 852 S. W. 2d 489 (1993). see also: Swinney v. City of San Antonio, 483 S.W. 2d 556 (1972). I I lob Telecommunications -- Cell-phone company says county failed to comply with Telecommunications Act Citation: Westel-Milwaukee Co. Inc. v. Walworth County, 556 N. I~2d 107 (~45sconsin) I996 Cellular One wanted to build a 200-foot telecommunications tower in an agricultural part of Walworth County, Wis. The company applied for a conditional-use permit, and the county held hearings. Local residents voiced concerns about possible health hazards of electromagnetic waves. They also said the tower would lower land values and harm the area's scenic beauty. Cellular One offered evidence that the tower was not hazardous, would not lower property values, and would be designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. The county denied Cellular One's request, citing neighboring landowners' concerns about property values and the tower's proximity to their property and home. Cellular One asked a court to review the county's decision. The company also asked the court to review some new evidence that allegedly showed the county discriminated against it. According to the company, the county had previously approved similar towers. The trial court said it did not. have the power to accept new evidence. It concluded the county properly denied the permit. Cellular One appealed. While the appeal was pending, President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Act included five rules relating to local zoning. One rule prohibited local authorities from using the zoning process to unreasonably discriminate against competing telecommunications service providers. Cellular One claimed the Act should apply to its proposed tower, even though it submitted its proposal before the Act became law. DECISION: Sent back to the county for reevaluation in light of the Act, The Telecommunications Act's ban on discrimination among competing companies showed Congress wanted local authorities to consider how zoning decisions affected the telecommunications market. Cellular One may have had evidence related to the issue of free competition. The Act should apply to Cellular One's application even though it became effective only after Cellular One appealed. It was more efficient for the county simply to re-hear the application now rather than for Cellular One to reapply. see also: Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. CiO, of Medina, 924 F..Suflp. J036 (2996). see also: L.I.M.A. £artners v. Borough of Northvate, 530 A.2d 839 (J987). i I I I I ! I I I I I ! I I I I