|
Page 5 ell2
<br />
<br /> 301 F.Supp.2d 1251 Page 4
<br />' (Cite as: 301 l~.Supp.2d 12~1)
<br />
<br /> IL Discussion TCA restricts zoning boards' authority to base their
<br /> denials on perceived adverse environmental effects,
<br /> The TCA permits parties to bring cases like this in since that issue is heavily regulated by the federal
<br /> federal court: government. Id. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). Congress also
<br /> Any person adversely affected by any final action delineated three situations at issue in this case in
<br /> or failure to act [regarding siting a cell-phone which federal courts can reverse a local zoning
<br /> tower] by a State or '12S$ local government or board's, denial of a permit for a cell-phone tower:.
<br /> any instrumentality thereof.., may, within 30 days (1) when the board's denial is not "supported by
<br /> after such action or failure to act, commence an substantial evidence contained in a written record,"
<br /> action in any court of competent jurisdiction~ (2) when the board's decision "prohibit[s]' or ha[s]
<br /> 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v). Congress therefore the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal
<br /> expressly intended for local zoning decisions which wireless serviceS," and (3) when the board's
<br /> affect cell-phone towers to be reviewed by federal decision "unreasonably discriminate[s] among
<br /> courts. A driving force behind this decision was providers of functionally equivalent servicesl" Id. §
<br /> Congress's conclusion that" 'siting and zoning 332(c)(7)(B). Plaintiff contends that the city's
<br /> decisions by nOn-federal units of government[ ] denial violates each of these three provisions. [17N2]
<br /> have created, an inconsistent and, at times,
<br /> COnfliCting .patchwork of requ'uvments which will
<br /> inhibif "the development and growth of wireless FN1. Notably, the House version of the
<br /> services. Omnipoint Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of bill would have given the FCC (rather than
<br /> Pine Grove Township, 181 F.3d 403, 407 (3d local zoning entities) authority to regulate
<br /> Cir. 1999) (quoting H.tL Rep. 104-204, at 94 (1995) tower siting. See generally Sprint
<br /> · reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 10, 61). Thus, Spectrum £.P. v. Pari~h of Plaquemines,
<br /> generally speaking, the TCA reflects Congress's No. 01- 0520, 2003 '.WI. 193456, at *5
<br /> intent to expand wireless services and increase (E.D.La. Jan. 28, 2003)(discussing TCA~s
<br /> competition among providers. Todd, 244 F.3d at 57; legislative history). But, as Section
<br /> see also H.R.Rep. No. 104-458, at 113 (1996), 332(c)(7)(A) shows, Congress made a
<br /> reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 124, 124 (stating 'con,scions. decision to reject any. scheme
<br /> TCA intended "to provide for a pro-competitive, revoking local control over zoning
<br /> deregulatory national policy framework designed to decisions, even at the cost of inhibiting the
<br /> accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of growth ofwirelessservices.
<br /> advanced telecommunications ... and services to all
<br /> Americans by opening, all telecommunications
<br /> markets to competition"). FN2. Although no formal motions have
<br /> been filed with the court, the parties agreed
<br /> But despite Congress's intention to 'advance at oral argument the c~e is ready to be
<br /> competition among wireless providers, Congress decided.
<br /> also acknowledged "there are legitimate state and
<br /> local concerns involved in regulating the siting of
<br /> such facilities ... such as aesthetic values and the A. Substantial Evidence
<br /> costs associated with the use and maintenance of
<br /> public rights-of-way." H.tL Rep. 104-204, at 94-95 Plaintiff argues that the city's denial of plaintiffs
<br /> (1995), reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 10, 61. conditional-use application was not supported by
<br /> Consequently, the TCA expressly preserves local "substantial evidence." '1256 Plaintiff essentially
<br /> zoning authority regarding the placement of . argues that the 'city's decision was improperly based
<br /> equipment such as cell-phone towers: on nothing more than general, speculative aesthetics
<br /> ExCept as provided in this paragraph, nothing in concerns.
<br /> this chapter shall limit or affect the authority of a
<br /> State or .local government or instrumentality [1] While the Ninth Circuit has not yet decided a
<br /> thereof over decisions regarding the placement, case under the TCA provisions at issue in this case,
<br /> ~onstruction, and modification of personal other federal courts agree "substantial evidence," as
<br /> wireless service facilities, used in the TCA, was meant generally to track the
<br /> 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A). [17N1] However, the standard of the same name set forth in the
<br />
<br /> Copt. © West 2004 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
<br />
<br /> htto://orint, westlaW.¢om/deliverv.htmlTde.~t=atnit,.datald=A OO~;~;ROOOOOilg~ 1ROO0107~t~l 1 d/~ d/onna
<br />
<br />
<br />
|