Item 6 - PH/Cell Towers - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 10 ell2 301 F.Supp.2d1251 (Cite as: 301 F.Supp.2d 1251) Page 9 bans would lead to the .conclusion that, in the important, plaintiff does not show "f~J~er absence of an explicit anti-tower policy, a court reasonable efforts are so likely to be fruitless that, it would have to walt for a series of denied is a waste of time even to try." Seco~l Get, ration, applications before it could step in and 'force a local 313 F.3d at 629. For instance, the record indicates government to end its illegal boycott of personal plaintiff could have achieved its objectives by wireless services.' ",qt. Croix, 342 F.3d at 833 installing two towers at other locations. R. 117, (quoting Sprint Spectrum, LP v. ~Yilloth, 176 F.3d R.513-15. Although the record suggests one of the 630, 640-41 (2d Cir. 1999)). Thus the court should two alternative towers would be three feet above eousider whether, as plaintiff contends, the city's FAA regulatory limits, R.425, tL517,19, plaintiff denial in this case' amounts to an effective does not point to any evidence showing the effect prolu'oition- reducing the one tower by, three feet would have on service provided by th~ two-tower alternative. In invoking the effective prohibition clause," 'the Instead, in response to the FAA regulatory limits, it burden 'for the carrier ... is a heavy one.' "Seco~l appears plaintiff submitted a proposal taking into Generation, 313 F.3d at 629 (quoting Town of account only one proposed tower. R.425, IL575. .4mherst, 173 F.3d at 14); see also MetroPC$, 259 Such an attempt does not suffice to carry plaintiffs F.Supp.2d at 1013 (stating a provider challenging a burden to show any:further reasonable efforts would permit denial on effective prohibition grounds be fruitless. Similarly plaintiff does not attempt to "bears a ~eawf burden ofprooP'), show that the proposed tower was the "only feasible plan" or that "there are no other potential solutions [8]. As an initial matter, in deterll~inlng whether a to the purported problem." St. Croix, 342 F.3d at denial is an effective prohibition, courts have 834.[FN5] looked to w.hether the proposed tower would close a "significant gap" in coverage., St. Croix, 342 F.3d at 835 n. 7;. Omnipoint Communications Enters., FN5~ That the possible alternative would L.P.v. Zoning'Hearing Bd. of Easttown Township, have' required two towers does not make 331 F.3d' 386, 397-98 (3d Cir.2003); Second the Goldea Road proposal the only feasible Generation, 313 F.3d at 631. In addition, the option. Although plaintiff might believe provider .must show, not just that this permit its one-tower alternative is the more application was denied, but that further " attractive option, the city could have 'reasonable efforts are so likely to be fruitless that it reasonably believed two towers in other is a waste of time even' to try.'" Second Generation, locations is' better than one tower in the 313 F.3d at 629 (quoting Town 'of Amherst, 173 proposed l°eation. See, e.g., Parish of F.3d at 14); accord St. Croix, 342 F.3d at 834. Plaquemines, 2003 WL 193456 at '19-20 Under this standard, the provider must show its" (noting, even though the alternative site 'existing application is the only' feas~le plan' and ... would require "two towers at other 'there are no other potential solutions to the locations," the city could reasonably prefer purported problem.) "St..Croix, 342 F.3d at 834 "two or more towers" at other locations (quoting Tawn of Pelham~ 313 F.3d at 630, 635). instead of one tower at the location Sprint Plaintiff cannot meet the applicable standard: chose); see also Town of dmherst, 173 F.3d at 15 ("Ultimately, we are in the First, plaintiff does not establish its proposed tower realm of trade-offs: on one side [is] the would close a "si~iHcant gap" in coverage. A opportunity for the carrier to save costs, significant gap does not exist simply because an pay more to the town, and reduce the area with coverage also has "dead spots" (i.e.," number of towers; on the other are more '[s]mall areas within a service area where the field costs, more towers, but possible less strength is lower than the minimum level for offensive sites and somewhat shorter reliable service' "). Second Generation, 313 F.3d at towers."). 631 (quotiag 47 C.F.R. § 22.99). It is undisputed plaintiffs tower would simply improve existing indoor coverage, not fill a complete void in '1262 And contrary to. plaintiffs contention that coverage. See, e.g., Plaintiffs Reply Memorandum .the city rejected the tower simply because the tower at 3. This at most appears to be a dead spot. More. would have been visible to the neighbors, the city Copr. © West 2004 No Claim to. Orig, U.S. 'Govt. Works IV-66 http://print'wesflaw.c°m/deliVerv.html?dest=ato&dataid=AO0558000000661 gO001979611.., a/la/gof~a