Item 3 - PH/Ord. on Cell Towers - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

: 301 F.Supp.2d 12S1 Page 1 (Cite as: 301 F.Supp.ld 12~1) United States District Court, 414k36 Most Cited Cases D. Oregon. 'Under Oregon law, city can prohibit proposed use VOICE STREAM PCS I, LLC, d/b/a T-Mobile, of property on sole ground that use is offensive to Plaintiff, aesthetic sensibilities. Golden Road Baptist Church, Involuntary Plaintiff, v. [3] Zoning and Planning C~)384.1 CITY OF HILLSBORO, Defendant. 4141084.1 Most Cited Cases Civil No. 03-365-MO. Under Telecommunications Act (TCA), local zoning board is entitled to make aesthetic judgment Feb. 2, 2004. in ruling on conditional nad application for wireless telecommunications tower, as long as judgment is grounded in specifics of case, and does not evince Background: Wireless telecommunications .merely aesthetic opposition to cell-phone towers in service provider brought action under general.. · Communications Act of 1934, § Telecommunications Act (TCA) seeking to overturn 332(c)(7)(B), 47 U.S;C.A. § 332(c)(7)(B). city's decision to deny its conditional use application to erect wireless telecommunications [4] Zoning and Planning ~384.1 tower in..,residentially zOned area. 4141084.1 Most Cited Cases Holdings: The District Court, Mosman, J., held Substantial evidence supported city's decision to that: deny, on aesthetic groun&, conditional use (1) substantial evidence supported city's decision application for wireless telecommunications tower to deny application on aesthetic grounds; in residentially zoned area, despite applicant's (2) city's decision did not effectively prolu'bit contention that decision was based solely on wireless services in city; and general, unsubstantiated aesthetics concerns, in light (3) city did not unreasonably discriminate agai,~t of evidence, that city considered specific scene in provider, which proposed tower would appear, city gave consideration to proposed tower's distance from Judgment for city. surrounding homes, and proposed tower would not " have filled complete void in coverage but instead would only have improved indoor coverage. West Headnotes Communioations Act of 1934, § 332(c)(7)(B), 47. U.S.C.A. § 332(c)(7)(B). [i] Zoning and Planning C=~708 414k708 Most Cited Cases [5] Zoning and,Planning C:~685 414k585 Most Cited Cases Court reviewing local zoning decision affecting 'wireless telecommunications towers pursuant to In seeking to overturn city's decision to deny Telecommunications Act (TCA) must examine conditional use application for wireless entire record, including evidence contradictory to telecommunications tower in residentially zoned local govermnenfs decision, in determining whether area, burden is on applicant. Communications Act substantial evidence supports - decision, of 1934, § 332(c)(7)(B), 47 U.S.C.A. § 332(c)(7)(B) Communications Act of 1934, § 332(c)(7)(B), 47 U.$.C.A. § 332(c)(7)(B). [6] Zoning and 1)lanning C~642 [2] Zoning and Planning ~=:,36 414k642 Most Cited Cases Copt. © West 2004 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works IV-58 http://printwesflaw.¢om/d¢livery.html?dcs~atp&dataid=A0055800000066180001978611.. 4/14/2004