CC PACKET 08142007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

)ri HORSEY 28 APT Minneapolis, Inc v. City of Maplewood, the applicant applied for a tower site in an industrial zone in accordance with that city's ordinance that specifically allowed for tower placement in industrial zones. 1998 WL 634224. The denial of the application, therefore, was contrary to the local zoning requirements. In APT Minneapolis, Inc. v. Stillwater Township, the applicant again had complied with the requirements of the township ordinance that governed wireless towers, however, instead of acting on the application, the city chose to establish a 6 month moratorium on considering any applications to permit the placement of towers. 2001 WL 1640069. Contrary to the cases cited by Midwest Real Estate, the City is not arbitrarily prohibiting the provision of wireless services by its denial of the Application, but -instead made a finding that the tower placement requested by Midwest Real Estate is inconsistent with the City Code. The City acquired sufficient substantial evidence, from public comments and its own analysis, to conclude that Midwest Real Estate's Application for its tower site was not consistent with the general zoning scheme of the city as established in its Code. Midwest Real Estate had the burden to prove that it thoroughly investigated alternatives to any viable alternatives in light industrial use areas. Minnesota Towers, Inc v. City of Duluth, 2005 WL 1593044. It has failed to do so, and, based on the evidence in the record, its current requested location can not be accepted. The City's decision to deny the Application, therefore, is within its local zoning authority that has been preserved in Section 332(c)(7) of the Telecommunications Act. Again, I recommend that the Council review the Resolution for consistency with its Findings on June 26, 2007, and, if so, adopt the Resolution at its August 14, 2007 meeting. DORSET & WHITNEY LLP