Keep up with the latest developments and legal issues in the telecommunications and emerging technology sectors, with exclusive access to a comprehensive collection of telecommunications law news,...
By Eric Topor
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Sept. 14 reversed a local zoning board's denial for a special use permit to construct a cell phone tower on leased land because of disparate treatment between the developer's project and two nearby similar towers (Global Tower LLC v. Hamilton Township , M.D. Pa., No. 3:10-cv-01705-ARC, 9/14/12).
Cellular tower developer Global Tower LLC challenged the Hamilton Township zoning board's denial of a special use permit to construct a 250-foot tower as a violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B) (TCA). Hamilton claimed it relied on evidence from an appraiser that surrounding property values would suffer, and that the proposed tower did not satisfy a number of zoning requirements for commercial developments on a separate lot.
Judge A. Richard Caputo agreed with an earlier magistrate judge recommendation to grant Global Tower summary judgment, and said it was clear that Global Tower's project was treated in a discriminatory fashion when compared to the two nearby towers of similar dimensions and use. Further, Caputo said under state zoning law, it was incumbent on the township to demonstrate that the project would negatively impact the health and safety of the public, a burden the zoning board improperly shifted onto Global Tower.
Global Tower leased a 100-foot square section of land in a 30-acre parcel in December 2008, and sought a special use permit to construct a cellular tower in the leased area. The property was zoned for commercial use, and permitted radio and television towers as a special use. The tower was to be 250 feet tall, secured by a fence, and accessed via a gravel road already on the property.
Hamilton Township already had approved two other similar towers in 2000 and 1996. Those towers were 250 and 280 feet in height, both were visible above the tree line, and both were also constructed on relatively small leased pieces of land within a much larger rural parcel.
Following 20 hearings, the township's zoning board denied Global Tower's application, citing disputed evidence from an appraiser that the tower would lower surrounding property values $10,000 on average. The board also deemed the proposal a new “lot,” and consequently said the tower violated fencing setback and roadway requirements. In addition, the board said the tower would be a safety hazard because emergency personnel would have trouble accessing the locked facility, though Global Tower offered to provide emergency responders with keys in advance.
Global Tower filed suit in August 2010, and moved for summary judgment. The township also moved for summary judgment, arguing that its decision cited substantial evidence, as required under the TCA for denial of a cellular tower special use application.
A magistrate judge recommended granting Global Tower's motion on the grounds that there was clear discriminatory treatment against Global Tower's project, and the evidence the township used in support of its decision was not credible.
The court agreed with the magistrate judge's recommendation, and noted that the board impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to Global Tower. Caputo said that under state law, special use permits were to be presumptively granted unless an objector can show, “with a high degree of probability,” that the proposed use presented a danger to public health and safety.
Caputo noted that concerns of aesthetics or diminution in value had no bearing on public safety arguments, and the board could not rely on such evidence to deny Global Tower's permit. “[I]t is clear that the Board incorrectly required Global [Tower] to prove that property values would not be impaired, instead of requiring the objectors demonstrate” public health or safety concern. Caputo also noted that the board failed to rebut flaws in the objector appraiser's methodology brought to light in hearings.
The court also found impermissible discriminatory treatment between Global Tower's project and the two previously approved and constructed towers. The magistrate judge said all three towers were functionally and physically the same, a conclusion Caputo agreed with.
The township claimed that the leased area was a separate “lot,” under the Municipalities Planning Code (53 Pa. Stat. Ann §§ 10101–11202 (Doc. 41, 12)) and consequently needed to conform to land development regulations. But the court said recent state supreme court precedent (Upper Southampton Twp. v. Upper Southampton Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 594 Pa. 58, 60, 934 A.2d 1162 (2007)) defined “land development” as pertaining to commercial and residential buildings. Captuo said the requirements for land development in the act were not applicable to a cellular tower.
In addition, the board's recitation of fencing, safe access, visual screening, and road concerns were all largely identical to the two existing towers, yet the board claimed no discriminatory intent because it claimed there was no evidence presented in opposition to those projects, unlike the Global Tower project. The court said Global Tower sufficiently showed it was similarly situated to the two existing tower projects, and was treated differently, a violation of the TCA.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)