Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2--June 25,2005 <br /> <br />Z.B. <br /> <br /> Telecommunications-- Communications provider wants to put antenna on <br /> golf course <br /> Residents concerned about property values and other adverse effects <br /> Citation: Michael Liner Inc. v. The F~Ilage of Wellington, IJth U.S. Circuit <br /> Court of Appeals, No. 04-J4759 (2005) <br /> The'Ilth U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. <br /> <br /> FLORIDA (05/06/05) -- Michael Liner Inc., a wireless communications com- <br /> pany, chose the village of Wetlington's Golf and Country Club as an ideal site <br /> for a proposed i20-foot flagpole with a cellular communications antenna con- <br /> cealed inside. <br /> Village residents were opposed to the pole. The residents' primary concern <br />was the impact the pole would have on the value of their property. Residents <br />testified they would not have purchased their homes ff the pole was present, <br />and a local realtor testified the pole would adversely impact home resale values. <br />Other ancillary concerns included the impact the, pole might have on nearby <br />non-commercial air traffic, and the pole's proxirnlty to a middle school. The <br />village ultimately refused to issue the necessary permit. <br /> Liner sued, and the court ruled in the village's favor. <br /> Liner appealed, arguing the village's decision was a "not-in-my-backyard" <br />objection based on insufficient evidence. <br />DECISION: Affirmed, <br /> The village's decision was based on substantial evidence. <br /> The village heard objections from residents and a realtor concerning the <br />negative impact on real estate values. The village also heard testimony that the <br />proposed site was unnecessarily close'to a local middle school. This testimony <br />was sufficient to support the village's determination. <br /> Linet's expert testimony contradicting the adverse property value impact <br />concerns was provided by a telecommunications executive who placed a tower <br />in a different part of the community and a realtor who based his knowledge on <br />condominium sales in a different county. <br /> The residents were worried about the impact of this tower on the golf course <br />within their community, not a different tower, different location, or different <br />community. Furthermore, Linet also failedto show an alternative location was <br />unavailable or unfeasible. <br />see also: American Tower L? v. City of FJuntsville, 295 F. 3d ]203 (2002). <br />see also: PrimeCo Personal Communications LP v. City of Mequon, 352 F. 3d <br />1147 (2003). <br /> <br /> © 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please pall (617) 542-0048. <br />102 <br /> <br /> <br />