WASHINGTON-Two courts on opposite sides of the country have ruled in favor of Sprint Nextel Corp. and against two municipalities that wished to reject tower-siting applications.
Both courts said that cities could not enact rules that arbitrarily restricted tower sites.
“Because the City of La Canada Flintridge, Calif., overstepped its regulatory authority under state law, its wireless ordinance is invalid, and no evidence supports the city’s permit denial. The district court’s conclusion that substantial evidence supported the city’s permit denials must be reversed,” wrote Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
In 2001, La Canada Flintridge approved a tower-siting ordinance that said the city could deny permits for towers that “would have a deleterious aesthetic impact on the neighborhood.” Sprint Corp. later filed for five permits-two were granted, one was withdrawn and two were rejected. Sprint appealed the two rejections. The district court sided with La Canada Flintridge, but the 9th Circuit said state law only allowed cities to pass zoning rules that dealt with access to rights of way-not the look or aesthetics of rights of ways.
“It is unlikely that local authorities could deny permits based on aesthetics without an independent justification rooted in interference with the function of the road,” said O’Scannlain.
Meanwhile in New Jersey, a state court has ruled invalid a zoning rule passed by the Borough of Ringwood that required towers to be built on city property and not within 1,000 feet of a hospital, school or public-recreation facility.
Judge Burrell Humphreys found the Ringwood ordinance to be unreasonable and the 1,000-foot rule to conflict with federal law, which prohibits localities from restricting tower sites based on perceived health effects.
“An intention to provide a 1,000-foot proximity requirement in order to protect against a public perception that the tower presents a health hazard from emissions contravenes the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which expressly forbids local regulation of the placement of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of environmental effect of radio-frequency emissions,” wrote Humphreys.
