Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2007

Home

Page 2 - December 10, 2006 ~z.B. Telecommunications - Cell phone company wins conditional use permit under Telecommunications Act ' Zoning board appeals decision Citation: USCOC v. Zoning Board of Adjustment for the City of pes Moines, 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 05-3049 (2006) The 8th U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri; Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. IOWA (10/11/06) - USCOC was a wireless communications company that leased a 40-foot square piece of property that was part of a larg~rparcel of land. USCOC applied to the zoning board of adjustment for a conditional use permit to construct an 85-foot tall telecommunications tower on the property. After two public hearings, the board denied USCOC's applicaq.ol1. It deter- ~ ' r, C mined that the proposed facility exceeded the zoning district's height limitation and that the proposed tower was located too close to a residential use. USCOC appealed the board's decision to court under provisions of the Telecommunica- tionsActof 1996 (Act). The court reversed the board's decision, and the. board appealed. DECISION: Reversed. In reviewing an administrative board's decision, a court had tp sustain the decision if the board's fmdings and conclusions were supported by substantial evidence in th~ record. Additionally, the Act specifically imposed a requirement that aboard, had to issue written d<?cisions that made factual determinations and pre- sented a rational basis for its decisions. The court found that the Act re- served the authority to make decisions regarding the placement and con- struction of cell phone towers located within the municipality to local zon- ing boards. Here, the court found that the board made substantial findings of fact - . -- establishing that: 1) there was a danger to adjacent property ownerS from, faIling ice; 2) the proposed towerwouldbe in clear view oftherrsidents of an adjoining condominium development and would tnterfere wi~ their enjoy- ment of their property; 3) the placement of the tower could atfeq:t property values of surrounding residential properties adversely; and 4) the .limitation of use on the subject property did not severely llinit the OWI)~r's: beneficial use of the property. As such, the decision of the lower court in favor of USCOC'WJ:l,S reversed, revoking the conditional use permit. see also: City of Rancho Palos Verde, Cal. v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113, 125 S.Ct. 1453, 161 L.Ed.2d 316 (2005). @2006 West, a Thomson business. Quinlan™ is a Thomson West brand. Any reproduqtion Is prohibited. 142 ( , f~-' (C ')