Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/05/2005

Home

March 25, 2005 --'Page 3 Immunity -- Wireless provider enters deal with state Permitted to build towers with commercial equipment on state-owned land Citation: Crown Communication New York Inc. v. Department of Transportation of the State of New Yorkl Court of Appeals Of New York, No. 7 (2005) NEW YORK (02/10/05) ~ The state of New York signed an agreement Permitting Crown Communications New York Inc. the right to construct arm operate commu- nications towers on state-owned land. Under the agreement? Crown leased space on the towers to localities and commercial wireless providers, and the state re- tained the right to co-locate its own communications equipment on the towers. Crown identified two state-owned locations in the city of New Roct~elle. Crown built two communication towers and entered into licensing agreements with several commercial wireless telecommunications providers. As the second tower was being completed, the city issued a stop-work order, contending the towers needed special permits because they were kubject to the city's zoning laws as commercial enterprises. Crown sued, arguing its towers and antennae shared the same immunity- from local laws as a state project. The court ruled in Crown's favor. The city appealed, arguing the towers mainly held private equipment and did not serve the public interest. DECISION: Affirmed. The towers and the antennae had zoning immunity. The co-location of state equipment served a number of significant public interests, advancing the state's overall telecommunications plan. Although there were more private than public antennae on the toWers, the presence of commercial equipment did not exclusively serve private interests: The towers' private antennae improved the availability of 911 emergency cellu- lar calls made by the public. Also, the state's HighwaY Emergency Local Patrol relied on wireless services provided by one of the carriers co-located on the towers. Numerous state agencies, including the Thruway Authority, Dormitory Authority, Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Department of Health, utilized phone services by-these same private carriers. Significantly, the co-location of public and private equipment on Crown's towers eliminated the need for the proliferation Of telecommunications towers, an important environmental and aesthetic concern. Finally, profits derived from licensing space to wireless providers would ultimately aid in. financing the state's telecommunications infrastructure plan. The f'act the commercial wireless providers could have realized a profit did not undermine the public interests served by co-location. Similar to an airport develop- ment project, the public and private uses of the towers were sufficiently intertwined to justil;y exemption of the towers and antennae from local zoning regulations. ,tee also: Chamber,~' v. Old Stone Hill Roar/, 806 N.~F. 2d 979 (2004). © 2005 Quintan Pubtishtng Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more inlormation please call (617) 542-0048. 105