11-26-1997 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

NOV- 7-97 FRI 12 :36 PM JUSTIN. PROPERTIES FAX NO, 16126410169 P. 7 B) Westel Milwaukee Co. v. Walworth County, 556 N.W.2d 107 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996) * C) In reviewing Walworth County's denial of Westel's application to build a 200 -foot telecommunications tower, the court ruled that the 1996 Act applied and remanded to the district court for a determination pursuant to the Act. Relying on Scrim, Spectrum v, City of Medina, the court held that, aside from the five requirements of Section 704, the Act did not interfere with the process used in local zoning decisions. Sprint Spectrum v. Town of West Seneca, 1997 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 43 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. 1997) The town adopted a 90 -day moratorium, but apparently did not adopt any permanent regulations. The town also failed to act on numerous applications that were pending when the moratorium was adopted. The court held that the town's failure to act on the applications was a violation of' Section 704's requirements to act in a reasonable time period. D) Western PCS II Corp. v. Extraterritorial Zoning. Authority, WL 85741 (D.N.M.) The court concluded that the Commission's decision to deny an application to place an antenna on a county water tower violated Section 704. A preliminary review committee had granted the request with conditions relating to height limitations, graffiti removal, and construction of a retention pond. The Commission was concerned that the County's property interest in the site only consisted of an easement "for utility purposes and fire protection." The Commission denied the request for that reason and because no residents testified that they wanted the services that the tower was to provide. The court concluded that the Commission's decision violated Section 704 because: (1) The Commission did not make a written decision, and the preparation of a transcript after the appeal was not sufficient to meet this requirement; (2) The lack of public support for the facility was not substantial evidence to support a denial; (3) The denial unreasonably discriminated among providers of functionally equivalent services, because two other analog cellular providers already served the same freeway corridor that the applicant wanted to serve; and (4) The denial had the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. Page 88