Supported by the Telecom Act of 1996, wireless carriers are taking towns across the country that have denied them permits for tower builds to court-and winning. Reports from local newspapers nationwide show that the tower-related provisions in the telecom act are working as intended-to make it easier for carriers to erect antennas to improve wireless service.
One case, in which AT&T Wireless Services Inc. sued the City of Carlsbad, Calif., was settled last week. The city lost and now owes $250,000 in damages to AWS, according to the North County Times.
AWS sued Carlsbad after the city council denied a permit for a tower to be installed in a residential neighborhood. The antenna was to be installed inside a fake chimney on a home. Pacific Bell previously installed a similar tower on the same street without protest.
In the lawsuit, AWS argued that the tower was being denied because of health concerns, which is a violation of the 1996 telecom act, which says cities cannot deny permits so long as the radio-frequency emissions are within Federal Communication Commission’s guidelines. AWS also argued the city was playing favorites because it had earlier allowed Pacific Bell to install an antenna without controversy.
In another court battle, Sprint PCS has sued Stamford, Conn., after being denied a permit to install an antenna inside a church steeple on the roof of Union Baptist Church, according to a report from Southern Connecticut Newspapers Inc.
In this case, citizens asked the zoning board of appeals to overturn their zoning enforcement officer’s earlier approval of the antenna site. As support, the citizens have cited the prohibition of renting the church to outside organizations, which was one of the terms included in the permit granted to Union Baptist Church by the city when it was built.
Sprint also recently threatened to sue the city of Berkeley, Calif., according to the Daily Californian, if the City Council denied a permit to install an antenna on a rooftop in North Berkeley. Many citizens of Berkeley were worried about possible health effects from the antenna. Nearly as many citizens, however, contacted the council to say the antennas would improve poor cell-phone reception in the area. When the council finally voted, the antenna was approved, mainly because council members believed they saw more evidence that the tower would have positive effects on the community than negative effects, according to the paper.
In La Mesa, Calif., the San Diego Union Tribune reported city leaders dropped a lawsuit against Sprint PCS over building a tower in a residential area there. Sprint was planning to erect an antenna inside a flag pole in front of a home. It would be the first in a residential area in the city. Sprint sued La Mesa after the city denied it a permit for the tower.
A recent case in LaGrange, N.Y., surrounding a tower owned by OmniAmerica Towers Inc., which leases space on it to Nextel of New York Inc., ended in a compromise between industry and consumers.
OmniAmerica and Nextel sued LaGrange after the town’s zoning board determined a 221-foot-tall cellular tower there was not a legal use of the property on which it was located. The tower has been there since 1972 when it was built for cable television, and the residential area has since been developed around it.
The court decided the tower should be taken down and replaced by a shorter, unlit monopole, according to a report in the Voice Ledger. Under the new agreement, the monopole will not exceed 150 feet in height, and therefore, will not require lights under Federal Aviation Administration regulations. In addition, under revised safety guidelines, the tower will be designed to collapse in on itself should it fall.
Meanwhile, a zoning change in Calvert County, Md., may make it easier for carriers to install towers. Owings, Md.-based Telecom Consulting Group Inc. said it will construct a low-visibility monopole tower on property there that is part of the Agricultural Land Preservation Program, following recent approval from the board of appeals.
The site’s designation in the program means the land is generally restricted to farming and forestry use, according to TCG. The zoning change, which TCG lobbied for, will allow land owners of such property to enter long-term lease arrangements with tower companies or carriers. In addition, it will allow towers to be built on such land rather than main thoroughfares.
Despite the plethora of industry wins, carriers are not guaranteed an easy win, as evidenced when the San Diego County Board of Supervisors last week said Sprint PCS cannot use a clause in a California state law to build a tower in Rancho Santa Fe, Calif., against the wishes of the community.
“The win for Rancho Santa Fe-and for every community, for that matter-is a big one. Sprint has been getting its way on the argument that it could apply for sites one by one,” said Carl Hilliard, president of the Wireless Consumers Alliance. “Sprint can’t run roughshod over communities anymore. Rancho Santa Fe’s winning challenge will echo for a long time to come.”
Sprint PCS had argued that California law allows free use of public rights of way, and it could apply for sites in the public rights of way without fear of challenge. Rancho Santa Fe, on the other hand, had developed a tower-siting plan that allowed for adequate coverage while requiring that the cumulative impact of towers be examined. WCA said six other carriers serving the area had agreed to the plan.
The San Diego County Board is now requiring Sprint PCS to conduct an environmental impact study considering the cumulative impact of towers.
“Sites are creeping up everywhere. They look like toadstools after a rain,” said Pam Slater-Price of the San Diego County Board. “I think that there really has to be a better way to integrate cellular service in communities so that it can be used but not abused.”
Washington, D.C., reporter Heather Forsgren Weaver contributed to this article.
