Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 6 - Special Issue <br /> <br />Z.B. <br /> <br />These actions constituted an informal denial of the applications. Following <br />the telephone call, the city never provided a written decision as to the status of <br />Wireless' applications. <br />While such an informal procedure could be sufficient under state law, it <br />directly violated the requirements of the Telecommunications Act. <br />seealso: United States v. City of Detroit, 329 F3d 515 (2003). <br /> <br />Communications provider wants to put antenna on golf course <br />Residents concerned about property values and other adverse effects <br />Citation: Michael Linet Inc. v. The Village of Wellington, 11 th u.s. Circuit <br />Court of Appeals, No. 04-14759 <br />The 11 th U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. <br />FLORIDA - Michael Linet Inc., a wireless communications company, chose <br />the village of Wellington's Golf and Country Club as an ideal site for a proposed <br />120-foot flagpole with a cellular communications antenna concealed 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 if 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 proximity to a middle school. The <br />village ultimately refused to issue the necessary permit. <br />Linet sued, and the court ruled in the village's favor. <br />Linet appealed, arguing the village's decision was a "not-in-my-backyard" <br />objection based on insufficient evidence. <br />DECISION: Affinned. <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 failed to show an alternative location was <br />unavailable or unfeasible. <br />see also: American Tower LP v. City of Huntsville, 295 F3d 1203 (2002). <br /> <br />@ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. <br /> <br />52 <br /> <br />(: <br /> <br />"Po <br />{,' <br />