Laserfiche WebLink
-LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY OVER CELLULAR ANTENNAS AND TOWERS <br /> <br />aissions from cellular towers on the health of nearby residents <br />not a permissible reason for making zoning decisions about <br />e placement of wireless telecommunications facilities. <br /> <br />The Act does not require local governments <br />to give preferential_ trem~ment w zoning requests <br />involving telecommunications facilities. <br /> <br /> n August 6, 1996, the FCC adopted revised guidelines <br />~eport and Order, FCC 96-326) for evaluating the <br /> nvironmental effects of radiofrequency emissions. Copies of <br />e FCC's Report and Order adopting these guidelines can be <br />_,rained from the FCC's duplication contractor, International <br />-ranscription Service, 2100 M Street, NW, Suite 140, <br /> 'ashington, DC 20037, 202-857-3800. <br /> <br />-~calities can require providers to comply with other federal <br />%oulations prior to issuing a tower construction or <br /> )dification permit. For example, towers taller than 200 feet <br />~d located within a certain distance of airport runways must <br />e registered with the FCC. The FCC works with the Federal <br /> 'iation Administration (FAA) to ensure that such towers are <br />.-,_propriately constructed, marked, painted, and lighted so that <br />ney do not create a hazard to air navigation. <br /> <br />Towers also must comply with the requirements of the National <br />Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the requirements of <br />those regulations implementing NEPA affecting wilderness <br />areas, wildlife preserves, endangered species, historical sites, <br />Indian religious sites, floodplains, wetlands, high intensity <br />white lights in residential neighborhoods, and radiofrequency <br />emissions in excess of the FCC's guidelines. <br /> <br />Dispute Resolution <br /> <br />If a wireless provider claims that a local government has violated <br />any of the first four conditions above, that provider must seek <br />relief in a state or federal court, not from the FCC. This <br />provision in the Telecommunications Act was a victory for local <br />governments. State and federal courts provide a more neutral <br />and much tess costly arena for parties to resolve disputes than the <br />FCC, where industry attorneys have a decided financial and <br />practical advantage over city and county attorneys. <br /> <br />A disappointed applicant may go to the FCC only if it claims <br />that the locality improperly based its adverse siting decision on <br />the harmful effects of radiofrequency emissions from the <br />proposed facility. <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br /> <br />