Laserfiche WebLink
The court shall hear and decide such <br />action on an expedited basis. Any person <br />adversely affected by an act or failure to <br />act Irff a State or local government or an:~ <br />instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent <br />with clause (iv) may pe£ition the <br />Commission for relief. <br /> <br />"(C) Definltions.-For purposes of this paragraph° <br /> "(i) the term 'personal wireless services' <br /> means commercial mobile services, ~tnlicensed <br /> wireless services, and common carrier wireless <br /> exchange access services; <br /> <br /> "(ii) the term 'personal wireless service <br />facility, means facilities for the provision of <br />personal wireless services, and <br /> <br /> "(iii) the term 'unlicensed wireless service' <br />means the offering of telecommunications <br />services using duly authorized devices which do <br />not require individual licenses, but does no~ <br />mean the provision of direct.to*home sa£elli~e <br />services (as defined in section 303 (v)).". <br /> <br />What should a local government do to <br />implement this language? <br /> This language applies certain tests to decisions <br />on locating wireless facilities, the grant of <br />permission for locating wireless facilities, and the <br />timing of approval or denial of requests for siting <br />facilities. <br /> A county or other local government normally <br />has in place a general zoning ordinance. The <br />ordinance should be reviewed and, where <br />necessary, amended to deal with where, and under <br />what conditions, cellular towers and other wireless <br />facilities may be located. <br /> Step one is to review the current zoning <br />ordinance and any proposed cellular siting <br />language to determine if the ordinance <br />"unreasonably discriminates among providers <br />of functionally equivalent services." It would be <br />wise to revise the ordinance as soon as possible if <br />the analysis reveals a need to do so. <br /> The federal Act's requirement that a local <br />zoning law not "unreasonably discriminate" <br />means that local authorities should treat similar <br />facilities in the same manner. It does not mean <br />that all applicants for all uses must be treated the <br />same, even if they are competitors. For example, a <br />zoning ordinance that permits towers of a certain <br /> <br />height to be located in industrial zones but does <br />not permit them in residential zones is likely to <br />meet the test of reasonableness. On the other <br />hand, a zoning regulation that allows one wireless <br />provider to locate a tower in an industrial zone <br />but prohibits a second provider from locating a <br />similar-sized tower in the same industrial zone is <br />likely to attract a challenge as discriminatorg. <br />Different treatment based on good reasons such <br />as year of entry into the market, or first- come, <br />first-served, for a limited capacity tower site <br />should be more defensible. Different treatment of <br />similar providers with the same characteristics <br />and no rational distinguishing characteristics is <br />not. <br /> <br /> Step two is to review your local zoning <br />ordinance to determine if it totally "prohibits or <br />has the effect of prohibiting" the provision of <br />personal wireless services, and make changes if <br />the analysis reveals a need for change. An <br />example of a provision that might be viewed as <br />"prohibiting" the provision of personal wireless <br />services might be an ordinance that prohibits <br />transmitters anywhere within the county. An <br />example of a provision that might be viewed as <br />having "the effect of prohibiting" the provision of <br />personal wireless services might be a limitation on <br />the number and location of tower sites that has <br />the effect of making it physically impossible for <br />the provider to deliver service due to the nature of <br />the terrain, such as large hills between the <br />transmitter site and the customer location, that <br />prevents reception of the signals. <br /> Since each community's geography is <br />different, however, determinations on whether <br />an ordinance prohibits or has the effect of <br />prohibiting the provision of personal wireless <br />communications services will ultimately be made <br />on a cSse-by-case basis, hence the need for local <br />review. <br /> <br />Does the ban on prohibiting service <br />mean that every locality must allow a <br />cellular tower? <br /> Not n~cessarily. The number and kinds of <br />antenna locations needed to provide adequate <br />personal wireless service signal coverage to a <br />community will vary depending on terrain and the <br />density of population and buildings. For example, <br />a community that is very small geographically and <br />completely residential might be able to show that <br /> <br />A COUNTY AND LOCAL OFFtClAL5 GU~D~. TO THE. TELECOt~MUNICATION5 ACT OF 1996 <br /> <br /> <br />