New Jersey Decisions

Smart v. Fair Lawn, 152 Nc.J. 309 (1998)

Proposed mobile communications facility which required the construction of a monopole was not inherently beneficial, but Next Communications was entitled to use variance for 140-foot telecommunications monopole in an industrial zone because the facility would serve the general welfare without substantial detriment to the public good.

---

Federal Decisions

City of Arlington v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863 (2013)

“In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress ‘imposed[d] specific limitations on the traditional authority of state and local governments to regulate the location, construction, and modification of such facilities,’ [citation omitted]… Section 201(b) of that Act empowers the Federal Communications Commission to ‘prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out [its] provisions.’ [citation omitted]. The Act imposes five substantive limitations, which are codified in 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B); only one of them, § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii), is at issue here. That provision requires state or local government to act on wireless siting applications ‘within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed.’… In November 2009, the Commission, relying on its broad statutory authority to implement the provisions of the Communications Act, issues a declaratory ruling [and held that] [a] ‘reasonable period of time’ under § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)… is presumptively (but rebuttably) 90 days to proves a collocation application (that is, an application to place a new antenna on an existing tower) and 150 days to process all other applications. The FCC’s declaratory ruling is upheld because a court must defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statutory ambiguity that concerns the scope of the agency’s jurisdiction.”