Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/02/2006

Home

I" , \ Z.B. Special Issue - Page 7 (' \. City finds 195-foot tower would diminish property values Bases decision on neighborhood belief Citation: Minnesota Towers Inc. v. City of Duluth, U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, No. 04-5068 (DWF/RLE) MINNESOTA - Minnesota Towers Inc. wanted to build a new telecommunica- tions tower to serve the Piedmont Heights neighborhood of Duluth, an area that purportedly had many coverage gaps due to its hilly terrain. Minnesota Towers found a suitable location and applied for a special use permit to build a I 95-foot monopole tower. In support of its plan, Minnesota Towers pointed to a 1996 study written by Certifi,ed General Real PropeIty Appxaiser Scott Ruppert, entitled: "Real Estate Value hnpact Study, Issue: Do communication towers have an impact on the market value of residential properties in close proximity." The Ruppert study analyzed three study areas in Stillwater, Golden Valley, and New Hope, Minn., and concluded there was no measurable difference in the market value of properties there. After a public hearing, the city council denied Minnesota Towers's request. It found the proposed tower would diminish property values. Minnesota Towers sued, arguing, under the Telecommunications Act, the city could not deny its application on the available evidence regarding prop- erty values. DECISION: Judgment in favor of the city. Based on the information before the city council, the determination that property values would be diminished signi;ficantly by the presence of a 195- foot tower was based on substantial evidence in the record. The city relied on a petition signed by 72 citizens in the area neighboring the proposed site. The citizens stated that they believed the proposed telecom- munications tower would lower their property values. The citizens based their opinions on aesthetic concerns and on perceived health concerns associated with telecommunications towers, as enumerated in several published articles related to health issues associated with radio frequency exposure. Further, the record contained the opinion of a mortgage loan officer that a 195-foot tower would have a negative impact. The Ruppert study was not recent and its conclusions were based on places that were not similar to the Duluth area. Additionally, the legitimate lay opinions of neighboring landowners were valid evidence of the diminished market val- ues. Finally, although the city could not consider the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions in deciding whether to allow placement of a telecom- munications tower, this did not prevent the marketplace from considering health concerns as a factor in assessing the potential diminished market value of property near a 195-foot tower. see also: Voicestream Minneapolis Inc. v. St. Croix County, 342 F3d 818 (2003). @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 53