Subject:  RE Sprint antenna victories (fwd)
Date:     Thu, 3 Sep 1998 083329 -0500 (CDT)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@mail.llion.org>
To:       emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 3 Sep 1998 09:19:34 -0400
From: James Hobson 
To: "Roy L. Beavers" , vanprkr@together.net
Subject: RE: Sprint antenna victories (fwd)

Are the texts of the Amherst and Durham cases available anywhere on line?
I would tend to question Judge DiClerico's statement that generalized
aesthetic and safety objections are not enough, so long as the result is
not a ban on entry or complete blockage of service.
_______________________________________________________________________________
From: Roy L. Beavers on Wed, Sep 2, 1998 9:15 PM
Subject: Sprint antenna victories (fwd)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 15:58:56 -0700
From: Bob Weiner 
To: "\"Roy L. Beavers\"" 
Subject: Sprint antenna victories

              Sprint wins cellular phone
              tower suit against Durham

              Associated Press, 09/02/98 02:17

              CONCORD, N.H. (AP) - For the second time in two weeks, a
              cellular telephone company has succeeded in forcing a New
              Hampshire town to accept a new telecommunications tower.

              Durham officials said Monday the town has lost its fight
to
              keep Sprint from building a tower on Durham Point Road.

              U.S. District Court Judge Joseph DiClerico ruled the town
had
              to remove all obstacles to construction within 45 days and

              negotiate with Sprint over paying the company's legal fees

              within 30 days. The lawsuit already has cost the town
              $120,000, officials said.

              Sprint sued after the Town Council overturned a Zoning
Board
              ruling in favor of its tower application. Under the
Federal
              Communications Act of 1996, towns can restrict where
towers
              may be built, but cannot ban them altogether.

              Amherst lost a similar case last week when a judge ruled
that
              Omnipoint Communications Enterprises could build four
              190-foot towers there. The Zoning Board had said the
towers
              would spoil Amherst's rural and scenic character, but a
federal
              judge disagreed. Amherst is deciding whether to appeal.

              In the Durham case, DiClerico ruled the town's reasons for

              turning down the tower were not strong enough to meet the
              requirements of the Federal Communications Act.

              ``Courts have found denials based on generalized aesthetic

              and safety concerns to be insufficient,'' DiClerico wrote.

              The dispute began in January when town councilors approved

              an agreement with Sprint to lease property at the town
landfill.
              Sprint got a Zoning Board variance in February to allow it
to
              put up a 190-foot tower.

              But public opposition to the tower mushroomed. In May, a
              citizen petition caused the Town Council to withdraw its
              support for the tower. Sprint sued in June.

              Sprint now must go back to the Planning Board to seek
              approval of its site plan. It is unclear whether the
company will
              be affected by a change in Durham's cellular tower
ordinance
              adopted during the dispute.

              The telephone company also could consider an alternative
              design for a smaller, 150-foot tower disguised as a
flagpole.
              The design was commissioned by the town.








Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html