Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/04/2003

Home

/ Z.B. October 2.5, 2003 -- Page 7 Telecommunications -- Wireless provider sites large lattice tower on mountaintop Local board approves smaller, less obtrusive tower VIRGINIA (09/10/03) -- U.S. Cellular applied for a special use permit to construct a wireless telecommunications Ltansmission tower. The tower was designed to fill a coverage gap along a nine-mile stretch of Route 8. Pilot Moun- tain was found to be the ideal location for the tower. U.S'. Cellular wanted to build a 240-foot tower topped by a nine-foot light- ning rod. The proposed design called for the tower to be lighted and lattice in structure. Because of its height and location, the tower would be visible along the ridgeline, extending 170 feet abox(e the tree canopy. The Montgomery County Board of Supervisors denied the application, cit- ing land use regulations and a zoning administrator's opinion that the proposed tower would still leave gaps in service. However, the board did approve a per- mit for a shorter, less obtrusive tower. U.S. Cellular sued. The court ruled in favor of U.S. Cellular. The court found the board's decision violated the provisions of the Telecommunications Act by prohibiting personal wireless services. The board appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The board's denial was appropriate. The land the tower was going to be placed on was zoned "AgTicultural'" and designated by the Comprehensive Plan as "Conservation." Using the land to build a communications tower was not a~m4cultural and did not have any particular connection with conservation goals. Second, the Comprehensive Plan and Regional Approach discouraged the construction of new towers on ridgeline lands desig-nated as Agricultural or Conservation. Third, the Regional Approach disfavored the use of lattice towers and en- couraged the construction of monopole stealth towers. Multiple, shorter tow- ers provided a viable alternative to the 240-foot tower, and would provide com- parable coverage. Finally, according to the county zoning administrator, even if the tower were approved, coverage gaps would still eMst and result in the need for addi- tional towers anyway. Citation: USCOC of Virginia RSA #3 v. Montgomery County Board of Supervisors, 4th U.S. Circuit Courr of Appeals, Nos. 03-1322 & 03-1341 (2003). The 4th Circuit has jurisdiction over Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia, see also: 360 Degrees Communications Co. v. Board of Supervisors of Albermale County, 2il F. 3d 79 (2000). see also: AT&T Wireless PCS Inc.-v. City Council of Virginia Beach, 155 F. 3d 423 (1998). 85