Laserfiche WebLink
limit or affect the authority of a State or local government ... over decisions <br />regarding the placement, construction, and modifications of personal wireless <br />service facilities.'* The restrictions that Section 704 places on local units of <br />government are: <br />I. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />5. <br />Local regulations may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of <br />functionally equivalent services. <br />Local regulations may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the <br />provision of personal wireless services. <br />Local units of government must act within a reasonable period of time on <br />any request by a provider to place, construct, or modify a personal wireless <br />service facility. <br />A decision by a local unit of government to deny a request must be in <br />writing anu supported by substantial evidence. <br />A local regulation may not regulate the placement, construction, or <br />modification of a facility based on the environmental effects of radio <br />frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with FCC <br />regulations. <br />II. Moratorium Issues <br />Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.355, Subdivision 4 authorizes local units of <br />government to adopt moratr-riums for up to one year, with the capability of an 18 <br />month e.xtension. <br />Sprint Spectrum v City of Medina . 924 F.Supp. 1036 (W.D. Wash. 1996) <br />1. <br />2. <br />The court held that a six-month moratorium on the issuance of new special <br />use permits for wireless communications facilities did not violate the 1996 <br />provisions of the Act nor did it violate the Act’s 1993 provisions. In <br />particular, the moratorium did not violate Section 704(a) because the <br />moratorium was merely a "short-term suspension" giving the City an <br />opportunity to "act caieKilly in a field with rapidly evolving technology." <br />The moratorium also did not violate Section 704’s requirement that a city <br />act on an application within a reasonable time. The court held that no <br />rigid timetable was imposed on the City "where the circumstances call for <br />study, deliberation, and decision-making among competing applicants." <br />Generally accepted time frames used for zoning decisions were held to be <br />sufficient so as to not afford preferential t.eatment to telecommunications <br />applicants.