Laserfiche WebLink
February 10, 2016 1 Volume. 10 1 Issue 3 Zoning Bulletin <br />which a provider obtained permission to build a facility, now that it has <br />been built, any expansion proposals are reviewed based upon whether <br />the proposed expansion will substantially increase the size of the <br />facility." The court found that view was "faithful to the text of Section <br />6409(a), which does not contain any exemptions for facilities that exist <br />on condition of non -modification." <br />Accordingly, the court found that it could not conclude that the FCC's <br />interpretation of the term "substantial" modification was unreasonable. <br />Similarly, the court found that the FCC's interpretation of the term <br />"base station" to encompass support structures "comport[ed] with the <br />thrust of Section 6409(a)." The court found that "including support <br />structures in the definition of base stations [was] consistent with <br />Congress' intent to promote the expansion of wireless networks through <br />collocation." "Considering that collocation often adds electronic equip- <br />ment that requires structural enhancement to increase its load-bearing <br />capacity," the court agreed with the FCC that collocation would be <br />"conceptually impossible" if the definition of "base station" did not <br />include support structures. In conclusion, the court found that the Locals <br />failed to show that the FCC's definition of "base station" was an unrea- <br />sonable interpretation of the Spectrum Act. <br />See also: Printz v. US., 521 U.S. 898, 117 S. Ct. 2365, 138 L. Ed. 2d <br />914 (1997). <br />See also: New York v. U.S., 505 U.S. 144, 112 S. Ct. 2408, 120 L. Ed. <br />2d 120, 34 Env 't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1817, 22 Envtl. L. Rep. 21082 (1992). <br />See also: Chevron, USA., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, <br />Inc., 467 US. 837, 104 S. Ct. 2778, 81 L. Ed. 2d 694, 21 Env't. Rep. <br />Cas. (BNA) 1049, 14 Envtl. L. Rep. 20507 (1984). <br />Variances Owner of a building <br />on a corner lot claims peculiar <br />characteristic of being subject to <br />two separate street setbacks <br />warrants setback variances <br />needed to construct second story <br />Abutting property owner argues there is no <br />unusual hardship justifying a variance <br />Citation: E and F Associates, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town <br />of Fairfield, 320 Conn. 9, 2015 WL 8730002 (2015) <br />6 © 2016 Thomson Reuters <br />