Laserfiche WebLink
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />Some cellular companies try to gain unfettered access to city right of way by <br />Vertical Broadcasting v. <br />claiming they are utilities. The basis for such a claim usually follows one of <br />Town of Southampton, 84 F. <br />two themes—either that, as a utility, federal law entitles them to entry; or, in <br />Supp.2d 379 (E.D.N.Y. <br />2000). <br />the alternative, under the city's ordinances, they get the same treatment as <br />other utilities. Courts have rejected the first argument of entitlement, citing <br />to the specific directive that local municipalities retain traditional zoning <br />discretion. <br />B. State law <br />In the alternative, the argument that a city's local ordinances include towers <br />Paging v. Ba. of Zoning <br />Appealsfor Montgomery <br />as a utility has, on occasion and in different states, carried more weight with <br />Cry., 957 F.supp. 805 (w.D. <br />a court. To counter such arguments, cities may consider specifically <br />Va. 1997). <br />excluding towers, antenna, small cell, and DAS equipment from their <br />ordinance's definition of utilities. The Minnesota Department of Commerce, <br />in a letter to a wireless infrastructure provider, cautioned one infrastructure <br />company that its certificate of authority to provide a local niche service did <br />not authorize it to claim an exemption from local zoning. The Minnesota <br />Department of Commerce additionally requested that the offending company <br />cease from making those assertions. <br />In Minnesota, to clear up confusion about whether wireless providers <br />Letter from Minnesota <br />Department of Commerce to <br />represent telecommunications right-of-way users under state law and to <br />Mobilitie. <br />address concerns about deployment of small wireless technology, the <br />Minn. stat. § 237.162 <br />Legislature amended Minnesota's Telecommunications Right -of -Way User <br />Minn. Stat. § 237.163 <br />statutes, or Minnesota Telecom ROW Law, in the 2017 legislative session to <br />Chapter 94, Art. 9, 2017 <br />Regular session. <br />specifically address small wireless facilities and the support structures on <br />which those facilities may attach. <br />Minnesota Public Utilities <br />Commission, Meeting <br />Agenda (Nov. 3, 2016). <br />Because of these amendments, effective May 31, 2017 additional specific <br />state statutory provisions apply when cities, through an ordinance, manage <br />their rights of way, recover their right-of-way management costs (subject to <br />certain restrictions), and charge rent for attaching to city -owned structures in <br />public rights of way. Rent, however, is capped for collocation of small <br />wireless facilities. State law defines "collocate" or "collocation" as a means <br />to install, mount, maintain, modify, operate, or replace a small wireless <br />facility on, under, within, or adjacent to an existing wireless support <br />structure that is owned privately or by a local government unit. <br />The Minnesota Telecom ROW Law allows cities to require <br />Minn. stat. § 237.162. <br />Minn. Stat. § 237.163 <br />telecommunications right-of-way users to get a permit for use of the right of <br />Chapter 94, Art. 9, 2017 <br />way; however, it creates a separate permitting structure for the siting of <br />Regular Session. <br />small wireless facilities. <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/1/2017 <br />Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems Page 3 <br />