Laserfiche WebLink
B) Wcstel Milwaukee Co. v. Walworth Countv. 556 N.W.2d 107 (Wis. Ct. App. <br />1996) <br />In reviewing Walworth County's denial of W'estel’s application to build a 200-foot <br />telecommunications tower, the court ruled that the 1996 Act applied and remanded <br />to the district court for a determination pursuant to the Act. Relying on Soring <br />Spectrum v. City of Medina , the court held that, aside from the five requirements <br />of Section 704, the Act did not interfere with the process used in local zoning <br />decisions. <br />C) Sprint Spectrum v. Town of West Seneca. 1997 N.Y'. Misc. LEXIS 43 (Sup. <br />Ct. N.Y. 1997) <br />The town adopted a 90-day moratorium, but apparently did not adopt any <br />permanent regulations. The town also failed to act on numerous applications that <br />were pending when the moratorium was adopted. The court held that the town's <br />failure to act on the applications was a violation of Section 704 ’s requirements to <br />act in a reasonable time period. <br />B) Western PCS II Corp. v. Extraterritorial Zoning Authority. WL 85741 <br />(D.N.M.) <br />The court concluded that the Commission's decision to deny an application to <br />place an antenna on a county water tower violated Section 704. A preliminary <br />review committee had granted the request with conditions relating to height <br />limitations, graffiti removal, and construction of a retention pond. The <br />Commission was concerned that the County’s property interest in the site only <br />consisted of an easement "for utility purposes and fire protection." The <br />Conunission denied the request for that reason and because no residents testified <br />that they wanted the services that the tower was to provide. The court concluded <br />that the Commission ’s decision violated Section 704 because: <br />(1) The Commission did not make a written decision, and the preparation of <br />a transcript after the appeal was not sufficient to meet this requirement; <br />(2) The lack of public support for the facility was not substantial evidence to <br />support a denial; <br />The denial umeasonably discriminated among providers of functionally <br />equivalent services, because two other analog cellular providers already <br />serv'ed the same freeway corridor that the applicant wanted to serve; and <br />The denial had the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless <br />services.