Laserfiche WebLink
3.The moratorium also did not violate Section 704's requirement forbidding <br />discrimination among telecommunications providers. New applicants are <br />not discriminated against merely because existing telecommunications <br />facilities are in place. With the dramatic changes in the law and the <br />market, the City could not place the new applicants in the same position <br />as the existing companies; the City had to simply treat each new applicant <br />without discrimination. <br />4. <br />III. Reported Cases Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 <br />BellSouth Mobility. Inc, v. Gwinnett County. 944 F.Supp. 923 (N.D.Ga. 1996) <br />The court granted Bellsouth ’s request for a writ of mandamus compelling the <br />County to grant its application to construct a 197-foot cellular telephone <br />communications monopcic The County ’s denial of Bellsouth ’s application for a <br />"tall structure permit" was not supported by substantial evidence in a written <br />record as required by Section 704. On the contrary, the evidence substantially <br />supported issuing the permit. The "substantial evidence contained in a wxitten <br />record" requirement of the Act is the traditional standard used for judicial review <br />of agency actions. Evidence supporting the issuance of the permit included: <br />. 'I <br />1.showing that the monopole posed no hazard to navigable airspace, <br />including no objections from the local airport authority and transportation <br />author! t\'; <br />recommendations from the county planning and development department <br />that the permit be approved subject to three conditions that BellSouth <br />agreed to follow (BellSouth further offered to follow additional, self- <br />imposed restrictions); <br />3.evidence that property values had not decreased in the past in similar <br />situations; and <br />4. radio frequency emissions would be well within federal regulations. <br />Contrar>' evidence deemed insufficient included unsupported testimony by an <br />ovsTier of neighboring property expressing concern about 1) the potential safety <br />threat to children who might try to climb on the pole or facility; 2) the potential <br />that parts of the structure could become dislodged in strong winds and damage <br />property; 3) exposure to microwave emissions on a regular basis; 4) the <br />aesthetically unpleasing nature of the facility; 5) property value dimin»i'i jii; and <br />6) potential for more companies using the site.