Laserfiche WebLink
FROM POPHAM RAIK ET AL (THU) 5.15 ’97 9:S0-ST. 9:29/NO. S7600S6999 P <br />Ron Moorse, City Administrator <br />May 15. 1997 <br />Page 2 <br />Answer; <br />Answer: <br />Answer; <br />057/14135450 5/15/97 <br />The legislation protects from federal intrusion any local zoning decision <br />concerning wireless facilities, so long as municipal zoning decisions do <br />not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functic .ally <br />equivalent services or preclude cellular service from a community. All <br />challenges to municipal zoning decisions, except for those dealing with <br />the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions, would have to <br />be app^ed to the courts, rather than the FCC. As a result, the FCC is <br />prohibited from preempting local decisions regarding zoning. <br />Question 2: Is the cil>' required to accommodate the antenna needs of an unlimited <br />number of vendors (six to eight versus two to three different vendors)? <br />Probably. The Telecommunications Act does not allow’ the city to limit <br />the number of providers within the city and it must reasonably <br />accommodate all requests. However, it is likely that market forces will <br />limited the number of providers that seek transmission sites. <br />Question 3: Can the city prohibit antennas and towers from its rural residential area <br />even if this would require the vendors to go outside of Orono to provide <br />coverage to a small area of Orono? <br />Probably. Again, the city may reasonably rc.strict tower structure.*; a.*; <br />long as it does not prohibit the provision of services. Since the <br />construction of these systems involves a great deal of planning, it is <br />likely that the providers can anticipate and adapt to this type of <br />regulation by the city. <br />Question 4: In general, docs the proposed ordinance appear to be defensible and <br />within federal requirements? <br />Yes. There arc no reported decisions dealing with this new law and <br />there is no clear direction on these difficult decisions. The slated <br />guideline is reasonableness, which the courts w'ill have to define more <br />specifically. The proposed ordinance on its face appears to be <br />reasonable. <br />- <br />1 <br />i