Laserfiche WebLink
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />Because of the recent significant changes in the state law and the specific <br />requirements for deployment of small wireless facilities that do not apply to <br />other telecommunications right-of-way users, cities should work with their <br />city attorneys to review and update their ordinances. <br />C. Limitations on cities' authority <br />1. Federal law <br />Although federal law expressly preserves local governmental regulatory <br />authority, it does place several substantive and procedural limits on that <br />authority. Specifically, a city: <br />USCOC of Greater Missouri • Cannot unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally <br />v. Vill. Of Marlborough, 618 <br />F.Supp.2d 1055 (E.D. Mo. equivalent services. <br />2009). • Cannot regulate those providers in a manner that prohibits or has the <br />Minnesota Towers Inc. v. effect of prohibiting the provision of telecommunications services or <br />City of Duluth, 474 F.3d <br />1052 (8`h Cir. 2007). personal wireless services. <br />• Must act on applications within a reasonable time. <br />NE Colorado Cellular, Inc. v. <br />City of North Platte, 764 • Must document denial of an application in writing supported by <br />F.3d 929 (8th Cir. 2014) "substantial evidence." <br />(denial of CUP for tower <br />must be "in writing" but need <br />not be a separate finding <br />from the reasons in the <br />denial). <br />Smith Comm. V. Washington proof that the local zoning authority's decision furthers the applicable local <br />Cty, Ark., 785 F.3d 1253 (8th <br />Cir. 2015) (substantial zoning requirements or ordinances satisfies the substantial evidence test. <br />evidence' analysis involves Municipalities cannot cite environmental concerns as a reason for denial, <br />whether the local zoning <br />authority's decision is however, when the antennas comply with FCC rules on radio emissions. In <br />consistent with the applicable the alternative, cities can request proof of compliance with the FCC rules. <br />local zoning requirements <br />and can include aesthetic <br />reasons). <br />Bringing an action in federal court represents the recourse available to the <br />cellular industry if challenging the denial of a siting request under federal <br />law. Based on the limitations set forth in the federal law on local land use <br />and zoning authority, most often, when cities deny siting requests, the <br />challenges to those denials claim one of the following: <br />FCC 09-99, Declaratory • The municipal action has the effect of "prohibiting the provision of <br />Ruling, Nov. 18, 2009. <br />personal wireless service." <br />Tower and Antenna siting • The municipal action unreasonably discriminates among providers of <br />FAQ sheet from FCC. <br />functionally equivalent services (i.e., cell providers claiming to be a type <br />T -Mobile West V. Crow, of utilitythe et thetreatment as a utility under <br />No. CV08-1337 (D. AZ. so Y can g same Y uner city <br />Dec. 16, 2009). ordinance). <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/1/2017 <br />Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems Page 4 <br />