Laserfiche WebLink
SPECIAL REPORT! <br /> Communication Towers: <br /> THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 <br /> by Alexander D. Ruskell, Esq. <br /> Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to promote <br /> competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher EDITORIAL BOARD <br /> quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encour- Publisher <br /> age the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies. lit ad � .l sq <br /> Managing Editor <br /> The Act preserves the authority of state and local governments to Patricia J_Lloyd,Esq. <br /> regulate the placement and construction of wireless service towers.How- Editor in Chief <br /> ever, it also limits the manner in which state and local governments may Alexander Ruskeil,'Esq <br /> exercise that authority,providing state and local governments may not deny Editors <br /> construction of a wireless facility unless the denial is in writing and sup- Dacnd D Han,,hsq. <br /> l atryca Pasek F,, <br /> ported by substantial evidence contained in the written record. Also, the <br /> carol Johnson Perkins;Esq. <br /> denial cannot have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wire- _" Sarah,'ascarella <br /> less services.Finally,the Act prohibits discrimination among wireless ser- <br /> Atanatrla Telford <br /> Elizaheth,Wheeler;Esq <br /> vice providers, requires local governments to act on permit applications .Any Williams <br /> within a reasonable time period, and disallows local governments from <br /> l� g Graphic Design <br /> considering the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions. Carolyn 1-1oy <br /> Much of the time, after a permit application is denied, the permit Jenrufer;Flemtng <br /> applicant will attack the local government's decision by claiming it is un- <br /> supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence does not mean a <br /> The entire content of this supplement <br /> large or considerable amount of evidence, but rather such evidence as a copyrighted bytttepublisherand ynotbe 1 <br /> copied w thout prior,permission The <br /> reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Sub- put�Gshri is not engaged in rendering> ; <br /> stantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance. res '°rft"pdv�e a "" sn <br /> no responsibility r the statements and, <br /> The reviewing court also grants a degree of deference to the decisions of ! "of the contr ,ring writers creditors <br /> case law and statutes change notice <br /> local decision-making authorities.However,the substantial evidence Stan- from tine to time and are men specific to <br /> dard must be applied using common sense standards of reason. <br /> one jurisdiction The nor should it pp g is no�,infended to be, nor should It bi=:e <br /> considered, a substitute for legal or <br /> In Telespectrum Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Kentucky, professional advice rendered by a competent, <br /> the court ordered the local authority to approve a tower permit because it atu�rneyttprofss lcmal ttyrx,naver <br /> questions about the eppltCaUon;at issues q <br /> found the original denial was not based on substantial evidence.The deci- raised herein to your particular situation, <br /> seek the advice of a competent attorney ar <br /> sion to deny the application rested on the testimony and a letter from the other professional. <br /> Chambers, whose home was approximately 412 feet from the proposed We rest your privacy.If do not want:ti <br /> your name used for future of sef related <br /> site of the tower.The only recorded opposition to the site was the Cham- products or for products from third parties, <br /> bers' concerns they would be exposed to harmful microwave emissions please fet,name n+� by sending us y°uf <br /> S' p com#�tele trms and address, <br /> and that their property value would diminish. <br /> Published by ' ;'4, <br /> The court believed, while the Chambers may have been credible, <br /> t[NLAN ru LISHING GROUP <br /> sympathetic witnesses,their testimony was no more than unsupported opin- a <br /> Agent for Northeast Publishing Group <br /> ion that there were alternative sites available. Importantly,under the Act, 23 Drydock Ave.,Bosmn,MA 02210 a <br /> concerns of health risks due to emissions could not constitute substantial (617) 542-0048 Fax: (617}"345-9646 <br /> evidence in support of a denial. Email: info @quinia .coin <br /> Internet http://wwuzquinian tom <br /> The Fourth Circuit found sufficient evidence existed to deny a per- Copyright 02001 <br /> mit application from 360 Degrees Communications Company of <br /> ZO,BP,LI 993zoS11 <br />