Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 2 - Special Report <br /> <br />Z.B. <br /> <br />... <br /> <br />years. According to David Church, executive director of the New York <br />Planning Federation and an expert on telecommunications siting issues, <br />communities face a range of issues concerning telecommunications <br />regulation and compliance with the Act. <br /> <br />Few court cases have addressed the new provisions, and only one has <br />ruled directly on the validity of a local ordinance. In Sprint Spectrum, L.P, <br />v. City of Medina (summarized in the August 1996 issue of Zoning <br />Bulletin), a federal district court upheld a six-month moratorium on the <br />issuance, not the processing, of special use permits for wireless <br />communications facilities. <br /> <br />In its moratorium resolution, Medina's city council stated that five <br />wireless communications companies wanted to build facilities in the city. <br />And because the city expected more requests, it said it needed time to study <br />the feasibility of requiring co-location of facilities in the limited number of <br />acceptable sites. A study was also needed to ensure the continued availability <br />of sites in the future. <br /> <br />A closer look at the Act and its provisions should help municipalities <br />avoid running afoul of the law while maximizing their ability to regulate <br />communications towers. <br /> <br />No prohibitions <br /> <br />In regulating personal wireless service facilities, localities cannot <br />prohibit, or have the effect of prohibiting, the provision of personal wireless <br />services. According to Congress, this provision was intended to prevent <br />localities from banning personal wireless services or facilities. It was also <br />meant to require decision-making on a case-by-case basis. <br /> <br />The court in the Sprint Spectrum case said the six-month moratorium <br />did not violate this provision. The moratorium was merely a short-term <br />suspension of permit issuing, the court stated, so the city could gather <br />information and process applications. AIl the city had done, the court <br />determined, was proceed carefuIIy in a rapidly changing field. <br /> <br />While the Act's ban on prohibitions may not restrict temporary <br />moratoriums, a municipality that imposes highly restrictive and inflexible <br />requirements might violate the ban. Mark Bobrowski, a Massachusetts <br />attorney with experience in municipal and land-use issues, offers the <br />example of a town that required an applicant to use a monopole rather than <br />latticework. Ifsuch a requirement is strictly adhered to, Bobrowski says, it <br />could be successfuIIy chaIIenged. <br /> <br />No unreasonable delay <br /> <br />Localities must process applications within a reasonable period of <br />time, taking into account the type of request. They must support any denials <br />in writing and base their decisions on substantial evidence. <br /> <br />104 <br />