### 2019 WI APP 42 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION

Case No.: 2018AP580

Complete Title of Case:

E CO - S ITE , LLC F / K

/ A E CO - S ITE , I NC ., S COTT R. A KERLUND AND P ATRICIA A. A KERLUND ,
P LAINTIFFS - A PPELLANTS ,

V .
T OWN OF C EDARBURG ,
D EFENDANT - R ESPONDENT .

Opinion Filed: July 2 4 , 2019 Oral Argument: July 8, 2019

JUDGES: Neubauer, C.J., Reilly, P.J., and Hagedorn, J. Concurred: Reilly, P.J. Dissented:
Appellant ATTORNEYS: On behalf of the plaintiffs

- appellant s , the cause was submitted on the

brief s of J. Michael Long , Lisa M. Lawless , and James C. Remington of Husch Blackwell LLP , Milwaukee. There was oral argument by Lisa M. Lawless and J. Michael Long

. Respondent ATTORNEYS: On behalf of the defendant

- respondent, the cause was submitted on the

brief of Remzy D. Bitar and Luke A. Martell of Municipal Law & Litigation Group, S.C. , Waukesha. There was oral argument by Remzy D. Bitar.

### 2019 WI App 42

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED July 24, 2019

Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See W IS . S TAT . § 808.10 and R ULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2018AP580 Cir. Ct. No. 2017CV209 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

E CO - S ITE , LLC F / K

/ A E CO - S ITE , I NC ., S COTT R. A KERLUND AND P ATRICIA A. A KERLUND ,
P LAINTIFFS - A PPELLANTS ,

V .
T OWN OF C EDARBURG ,
D EFENDANT - R ESPONDENT .

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Ozaukee County:
SANDY A. WILLIAMS , Judge. Affirmed

.

Before Neubauer, C.J., Reilly, P.J., and Hagedorn, J.

¶ 1 NEUBAUER, C.J. This case involves the siting of a cell tower in the middle of a rural area in the Town of Cedarburg. Those proposing the tower

— Ec o

- Site, LLC f/k/a Eco

- Site, Inc., Scott R. and Patricia A. Akerlund

— appealNo. 2018AP580

2 from a judgment of the circuit court upholding the Town’s denial of the application for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the tower. Because the Town proceeded on a correct theory of law when it determined that the tower was incompatible with the uses, values, and enjoyment of the other property in the area under its ordinance, and this decision was supported by substantial evidence, we
affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 T

- Mobi le USA and T

- Mobile Central LLC currently ha ve their cellular equipment located (referred to as “collocated”) on the Village of Grafton

water tower , which is across the road fro m Akerlund Acres, a horse farm. Although T

- Mobile has a lease at the water tow er that runs until 2031, T

- Mobile sought to move their equipment to Akerlund Acres, about 13 00 feet away.
T

- Mobile and Eco

- Site executed a contract to lease a portion of the southeast
corner of the Akerlunds ’ land

. ¶ 3 On November 24, 2015, Eco

- Site and the Akerlunds, working with
T

- Mobile and P yramid Network Services, LLC (collectively called Eco

- Site), applied to the Town for a CUP to erect a 120

- foot metal monopole wireless
communication tower and supporting 5600 square foot structur e on Akerlund
Acres . Owned by the Akerlund s and located in an area c urrently zoned as an A

- 1 Agricultural District , the land was surrounded by property zoned as residential. 1

1 A

- 1 Agricultural Districts are zoned for the principal uses of apiculture, dairying, floriculture, forestry, general farming, grazing, greenhouses, hatcheries, horticulture, livestock raising, nurseries, orchards , paddocks, pasturage, poult ry raising, stables , truck farming, and viticulture. T OWN OF C EDARBURG , W IS ., C ODE § 320

- 25A. (2018).No. 2018AP580

3 ¶ 4 On December 4, 2015, the Town notified Eco

- Site that the
app lication was incomplete. Two more applications

— dated January 20 and February 22, 2016

— were similarly rejected as incomplete.

¶ 5 Eventually, Eco

- Site’s application was put on the agenda for the Town and Plan Commission meeting on April 20, 2016. However, due to input from the public at a t own p lanning c ommission meeting, Eco

- Site withdrew its application to search for alternate locations. On September 28, 2016, Eco

- Site
resubmitted its application.

¶ 6 At a town board meet ing on May 3, 2017, a fter a full discussion of
the information and issues , Town Supervisor Gary Wickert moved to deny the application for failure to meet three of six ordinance requirements and one statutory requirement. These grounds for denial were the following: (1) the considerable and foreseeable loss in value to the surrounding properties particularly given the rural and rustic nature of the property, and the loss of property sales in the area as a result of the prospect of the tower ; (2) the incomp atibility of the 120

- foot monopole w ith the adjacent land , which the Town is struggling to keep rural and rustic ; (3) the “dropping a metal tower in the middle of” a “beautiful and scenic area” would be detrimental the public health, s a fety , and general we lfare; and (4) Eco

- Site’s failure to explain why its “search ring” for other locations was so small, therefore failing to provide an application that was complete under W IS

. S TAT

. § 66.0404(2)(b)6. (2017

- 18). 2

2 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2017

- 18 version.No. 2018AP580

4 ¶ 7 Wickert’s motion was seconded, and the board voted 4

- 0 to deny the application. The Town provided Eco

- Site with a May 3, 2017 letter explaining the same reasons for the denial identified by Wickert.

¶ 8 In June 2017, Eco

- Site filed a summons and a petition for certiorari or, in the alternative, a complaint for declaratory judgment. 3 U pon reviewing the record and briefs, the circuit court ruled that the reasons set forth by the Town were not “just another way of saying aesthetics , ” but were in fact “legitimate reasons” for disapproval and that there was “substantial evidence” within the record to support its decision. Eco

- Site appealed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 9 Our appellate certiorari review looks only at the Town’s decision,
not the circuit cour t’s. Lake Delavan Prop. Co. v. City of Del a van , 2014 WI App 35, ¶5, 353 Wis. 2d 173, 844 N.W.2d 632. The scope of our review is confined to
four areas: (1) whether the Town kept within its jurisdiction ; (2) whether the Town acted according to law ; (3) w hether the Town ’s action was arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable, and represented its will, and not its judgment ; and (4) whether the evidence was such that the Town might reasonably make the order or determination in question. Id. , ¶4. We accord a pr esumption of correctness and validity to the decision of the Town, but whether the Town has exceeded its authority and how statutes are interpreted are questions of law we review de novo. Id. , ¶¶4

- 5.

3 The Akerlunds filed for certiorari with Eco

- Site. For ease of reference, we w ill usually refer to Eco

- Site.No. 2018AP580

5 THE LAW

¶ 10 Through the Telecommunicati ons Act of 1996, Congress attempted to balance the many conflicting interests affecting the placement of facilities for wireless services, including the regulatory interests of state and local governments and the need for a uniform national policy. See Ae gerter v. City of Delafield , 174 F.3d 886, 887 (7th Cir. 1999). “The Act empowers state and local governments to regulate the placement of facilities for personal wireless services, but their authority is not unfettered.” Id. at 887

- 8 8. When making decisions, a local government must not discriminate against providers of equivalent services or prohibit, or have the effect of prohibiting, “the provision of personal wireless services,” and it must respond in a reasonable time frame to re quests for modification or construction of related facilities and provide a written decision supported by substantial evidence “contained in a written record” if a request is
denied. Id. at 888

- 89; see 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B) (2018).

¶ 11 For its part, in 2013, the Wisconsin Legislature created W IS

. S TAT

. § 66.0404, which requires municipalities to use statewide standards for the siting and construction of mobile service support structures. While preempting many municipal regulations, it does not preempt all local control, providing that, subject to the statute, municipalities may enact zoning ordinances “to regulate any ... siting and construction of a new mobile service support structure and facilities.”
Sec. 66.0404(2)( a)1

. ¶ 12 Certain reasons for denial of an application are prohibited by statute. Relevant here, a municipality may not do any of the following:

(c) Enact an ordinance prohibiting the placement of a mobile service support structure in particular locat ions within the political subdivision.No. 2018AP580

6 .... (g) Disapprove an application to conduct an activity described under [ W IS

. S TAT

. § 66.0404 (2)(a) ] based solely on aesthetic concerns.

Sec. 66.0404(4).

¶ 13 The statute also lays out a proc ess for both the municipality and the applicant. When the construction of an entirely new structure is being proposed, as here, the applicant must explain why it chose the location and why it did not choose collocation, with a sworn statement from a respo nsible individual confirming that collocation within the “search ring” would lessen functionality, coverage, or capacity, or was technically infeasible, or was economically
burdensome. 4 W IS

. S TAT

. § 66.0404(2)(b)6. If an applicant refuses to do so, the

m unicipality may reject the application. Sec. 66.0404(2)(e).

¶ 14 Through its ordinances, the Town has its standards for approval of conditional uses. The ordinance states no conditional use shall be granted unless
all six of the ordinanc e’s conditions are met, to include the following three relied upon by the Town:

(1) Welfare. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general we lfare. (2) Compatible with adjacent land. The uses, values and enjoyment of other Town property in the neighborhood for purposes already permitted shall be

4 A “ s earch ring” is “ a shape drawn on a map to indicate the general area within which a mobile service support structure should be located to meet radio frequency engineering requirements, taking into account other factors including topography and the demographics of the service area. ” W IS

. S TAT

. § 66.0404(1)(r).No. 2018AP580

7 in no foreseeable manner substantially impaired or diminished by the establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use. (3) Not impede surrounding property development and improvement. The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding Town property for uses permit ted in the district.

T OWN OF C EDARBURG , W IS

. , C ODE § 320

- 51A (2018).

DISCUSSION

¶ 15 Eco

- Site generally asserts that the Town proceeded on an incorrect theory of law in two different ways: it misapplied its own zoning ordinances

— determining that the tower would be incompatible with the adjacent land

— and it based its decision on a statutorily prohibited factor

— solely aesthetic concerns. We reject each in turn.

The Tower I

s Incompatible With The Adjacent Land

¶ 16 The Town denied the application because the tower was not “[c]ompatible with adjacent land” and it would substantially impair or diminish the “uses, values and enjoyment of other Town property in the neighborhood.”
See T OWN OF C EDARBURG , W IS ., C ODE § 320

- 51A(2). We see no error by the Town in denying the application on this point. The Town zoned the area agricultural and the neighboring area residential, all in an effort to keep this areaNo. 2018AP580

8 rustic, rural, and populated. 5 This intended use and lifestyle ar e clearly at odds with, and would be thwarted by, the introduction of a 120

- foot tall telecommunications tower with its substantial related structure and fencing. The Town proceeded on a correct theory of law by relying on the applicable ordinance and app lying it properly. Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc. v. Sauk Cty. Bd. of Adjustment , 183 Wis. 2d 1, 8

- 9, 515 N.W.2d 256 (1994).

¶ 17 Moreover, there were concerns expressed, by more than one citizen, about how such a discordant and large struct ure will diminish property values, which was a reason noted by Wickert. 6 That concern fairly relates to the compatibility of the tower and the residents’ “uses, values and enjoyment” of their
land. 7 Eco

- Site does not challenge the substantial diminishmen t in property values as a valid ground for denial, but instead characterizes decreased property values

5 W EBSTER ’ S defines “rustic” as “relating to the country” and “having or exhibiting qualities held to be characteristic of rural people,” and it defines “rural” as “living in country
areas : engaged in agricultural pursuits” and “characterized by simplicity : lacking sophistication.” Rustic and rural , W EBSTER ’ S T HIRD N EW I NTERNATIONAL D ICTIONARY (1993). As the definitions indicate, “rustic” and “rural” are descriptive of function, manner , and use of the land, not exclusively visuals.

6 At the public hearings, many residents expressed serious concerns about property values, personally believing that there would be a negative impact. As a specific example, Larry Lechner, a resident and developer, stated he lost a potential sale when the buyer learned of the tower, an d he knows of another lot owner who said he would not have purchased the lot had he known about the tower. Another resident, Dana Carter, cited to a study published in The Appraisal Journal that “buyers would pay as much as 20 percent less for a property near a cell tower” and cited another study from Realtor Magazine indicating that “94% of home buyers and renters surveyed ... say they are less interested and would pay less for a property located near a cell tower.” Eco

- Site does not offer any evidence to the contrary.

7 A lthough public hearings on CUP s are not subject to the rules of evidence, we note that, even under those stricter rules, a witness may give his or her opinion as to value of property the witness owns. See W ilberscheid v. Wilberscheid , 77 Wis. 2d 40, 48, 252 N.W. 2d 76 (1977) (an owner is competent to give opinion evidence on value) ; se e also W IS

. S TAT

. § 907.01.No. 2018AP580

9 and lost sales as a solely aesthetic concern, which is prohibited and which we
discuss further below.

¶ 18 Eco

- Site argues the denial for incompatibility is invalid because the statute prohibits a municipality from banning such a structure from a “particular”
location. See W IS

. S TAT

. § 66.0404(4)(c) (the municipality may not “[e]nact an ordinance prohibiting the placement of a mobile servic e support structure in particular locations”). We disagree that the statute was violated. The ordinance does not identify any specific spot or area within the Town where such structures are prohibited. Rather, the ordinance turns on whether the structur e is compatible with the adjacent land and its current uses, and Eco

- Site fails to show how this language targeted this particular location to preclude a tower.

¶ 19 Eco

- Site next argues that denying the application based on incompatibility contradicts the Town’s own zoning ordinance, which specifically allows for the placement of mobile towers in an A

- 1 zoning district as a
conditional use. See T OWN OF C EDARBURG , W IS ., C ODE §§ 320

- 25C.(5), 320

- 107. This is an overreach. Simply because mob ile towers can be considered in A

- 1 zoning districts does not of course mean each one passes muster for compatibility or otherwise. In Wisconsin, a conditional use is “one that has been legislatively determined to be compatible in a particular area, not a use that is always compatible at a specific site within that area.” A llEnergy Corp. v. Trempealeau Cty. Env’t & Land Use Comm. , 2017 WI 52, ¶54, 375 Wis. 2d 329, 895 N.W.2d
368 . Thus, there is no presumption that a “conditional use is ipso facto consist ent with the public interest or that a conditional use is a use as of right at a particularNo. 2018AP580

10 site within an area zoned to permit that conditional use.” Id. , ¶55. The ordinance permits towers, if the conditions are met, but it does not rubber stamp them. See
C ODE § 320

- 51. 8

The Town Did Not Deny The Application Because Of Aesthetic Concerns Solely

¶ 20 Eco

- Site asserts that the Town’s denial on the basis of not only incompatibility, but on the basis of lost property values and the detrimental effect on public health and safety and general welfare, equates to a denial based on aesthetic concerns, which as noted is prohibited by statute if it is the sole reason.
See W IS

. S TAT

. § 66.0404(4)(g). Eco

- Site points out the following comments from the Town’s letter, which it believes show that aesthetics were the only reason for the denial (emphasis added):

[T]h ere would be considerable and foreseeable property value loss to residents in the vicinity of the tower site, and particularly big impact on the property values because of the rural and rustic nature of the unique piece of property

.... [C]onstructing a larg e metal monopole steel structure with an unsightly metal platform comprised of lots of exposed metal in the middle of utopia will have a great impact on property values .... [T]he tower is [not] compati ble with the surrounding area

. .. and is just about as incompatible as he could imagine.

. . . Supervisor Wickert[’s] ... comments ... will be focused on incompatibility of the tower in an area they are struggling to keep rural and rustic, and preserve it as such.

8 Eco

- Site also takes the Town to task for not proposing certain conditions that would mitigate the Town’s concerns about incomp atibility, without citing to any case or authority that suggests a Town has such an obligation. Our supreme court has held otherwise. A board of adjustment does not have the burden of formulating conditions enabling an applicant to obtain a CUP. Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc. v. Sauk Cty. Bd. of Adjustment , 183 Wis. 2d 1, 16, 515 N.W.2d 25 6 (1994). Such uses are permitted uses only when the standards prescribed by the ordinance are met. Id. The applicant has the burden of showing that these standards are met. Id. at 16

- 17.No. 2018AP580

11 Third, the granting of the permit would be detr imental to the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare. Taking a beautiful and scenic area and dropping a metal tower in the middle of it is detrimental to the general welfare of the public.
(Emphasis added.) Eco

- Site also notes that, a t the May 3 hearing, Wickert stated that the tower was “the equivalent of a giant erector set” that would be a “very real assault” on “a very beautiful part of our town.”

¶ 21 There can be no doubt that there were comments on the aesthetic
i mpact

— that the tower would be a visual blight and unattractive. 9 However, the incompatibility conclusion is far more than a denial based on aesthetic, or visual, “concerns.” The visual impact of the tower is different than the broader impact of
the tower on the uses and the lifestyle for which the neighborhood is zoned. The visual impact of the tower is also different than the economic impact on the property values

— a concrete impact on the neighbors’ pocketbooks and the Town’s property tax revenue. The impacts of these different “concerns” are not one and the same. An unsightly tower could certainly be placed in a location that would be compatible with the neighborhood uses and values due to the particular site, and vice versa, as the Town determined he re.
¶ 22 In sum, as noted, the zoning ordinance for CUPs has six requirements and at least one of them is missing (the compatibility requirement), such that the Town’s denial of the application was justified. Because the incompatibility s tandard is a valid basis to deny the application, it simply does not matter that aesthetic comments were made. The statute regarding aesthetics is in

9 The statute refers to “aesthetic concerns.” W IS

. S TAT

. § 66.0404(4)(g). “Aesthetic” means relating to or dealing with “the beautiful ... ARTISTIC ... pleasing in appear ance: ATTRACTIVE.” Aesthetic , M ERRIAM W EBSTER ’ S C OLLEGIATE D ICTIONARY ( 10th ed. 1997 ).No. 2018AP580

12 accord: it states that an application must not be disapproved “based solely on aesthetic concerns.” W IS

. S TAT

. § 66.0404(4)(g) (emphasis added).

¶ 23 We note that, if the legislature intended to eliminate broader concerns than the visual, it could have done so by modifying the statutory language. For example, the legislature could have state d that an application must not be disapproved for reasons “arising out of” or “relating in any way to” aesthetic concerns. By choosing the term “solely,” the legislature purposefully used limiting language

— only aesthetic concerns. We give statutory langu age its “common, ordinary, and accepted meaning” and “reasonable effect to every word.” State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cty

. , 2004 WI 58, ¶ ¶45

- 46 , 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110. 10
Substantial Evidence Supported The Town’s Denial

¶ 24 Eco

- Site argues that, even if valid reasons were given to support the denial, those reasons were not supported by substantial evidence. On certiorari, we are limited to ascertaining whether there is substantial evidence to support the
T own’s decision. Van Ermen v. DHSS , 84 Wis. 2d 57, 64, 267 N.W.2d 17 (1978). Here, substantial e videntiary support is also a statutory requirement. W IS

. S TAT

. § 66.0404(2)( d )4. We conclude there was enough evidence.

10 Notably, the statute dispenses with the limiting language applicable to new towers

— s olely

— instead precluding disapproval of class 2 collocation applications “on aes thetic concerns.” W IS

. S TAT

. § 66.0404(4)(gm). A class 2 collocation means the placement of a new mobile service facility on an existing tower without substantial modification. The different language applicable to existing towers underscores our reading that, as it relates to new towers, “solely aesthetic concerns” does not preclude the other grounds identified by the Town.No. 2018AP580

13 ¶ 25 “Substantial ev idence,” as is required to support a decision on an application for a CUP, is evidence where reasonable persons could decide as the
Town did. Oneida Seven Generations Corp. v. City of Green Bay , 2015 WI 50, ¶43, 362 Wis. 2d 290, 865 N.W.2d 162 (2015). We are not asked to weigh the evidence, nor may we substitute our view of the evidence for that of the Town.
Van Ermen , 84 Wis. 2d at 64

. ¶ 26 Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance of the evidence,
but it is more than a mere scint illa of evidence and more than conjecture and speculation. Onei

d a , 362 Wis. 2d 290, ¶44

. Overcoming the substantial evidence test is difficult because it is deferential to the Town’s decision, and a “[c]ertiorari
review accords the decision of the local governmental entity a presumption of ‘correctness and validity.’” A llEnergy Corp. , 375 Wis. 2d 329, ¶88 (citation omitted). 11

11 When we review whether there is substantial evidence, Eco

- Site argues that we may only consider the evidence contained within the Town’s May 3, 2017 three

- page letter disapproving the application. It cites W IS

. S TAT

. § 66.0404(2)(d)4., which states that “[i]f the decision is to disapprove the application, include with the written notification substantial evidence which supports the decision.” (Emphasis added.) We note that per the federal statute, upon which the state statute appears to be based, the decision must be supported by substantial evidence contained within “a written record.” S ee 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii); T

- Mob ile South, LLC v. City of Roswell , 135 S. Ct. 808, 811

- 12, 814

- 15 (2015) (record should be viewed in its entirety). The Town argues that the statute simply requires delineation of the reasons for denial in the written notification, but contends that the statute places no other constraint on a review of the entire record by a certiorari court for factual support.
(continued)No. 2018AP580

14 ¶ 27 We need only decide whether there is substantial evidence supporting the Town’s decision on the compatibility ordinance. There is. The simple undisputed facts are the Akerlund farm is surrounded by areas zoned residential, and the Town has been trying to keep this area rustic and rural. We earlier agreed that the Town’s application of the compatibility requirem ent was in accord with the ordinance and reasonable, as the conflicting natures of a sky

- high cellular tower and the simple, agrarian and residential spread of land at this site were noted. Likewise, although the tower itself will not be placed in the

res idential areas, it will be very close by, and it was reasonable for the Town to conclude that the tower was incompatible with many of the neighboring homeowners’ residential lifestyle, and for some, the values of their homes would be diminished by the omin ous, shadow

- casting tower. Several people at the hearings spoke out on these terms. True, no one produced a large

- scale, detailed analysis of the financial effect of the tower. But that is not needed given our
standard of review. Whether such a tower i s “as incompatible as [Supervisor Wickert] could imagine” for the surrounding residential and rustic areas, the evidence reasonably supports the Town’s decision. 12

Accepting without deciding that the statute limits review to the written grounds, the grounds identified in the May 3 letter suffice to support the denial. Beyond that, we see no reason the legislature would have precluded a review of the record, limiting the analysis to a document that is clearly intended to provide a summary of the reasons for the denial. This is particularly so, given that the process often involves extensiv e written testimony and materials. Here, the letter makes reference to the public hearings at which residents offered their views and information. The substance of the letter, the fact that it was written after consideration of hundreds of documents and public testimony, and its references to the other evidence and testimony are enough to meet the requirements of W IS

. S TAT

. § 66.0404(2)(d)4.

12 Because we conclude the Town’s denial of the CUP was supported with substantial evidence and was not based on so lely aesthetic concerns, we need not reach the Town’s other arguments supporting its denial.No. 2018AP580

15 By the Court.

— Judgment affirmed.No. 2018AP580(C)

¶ 28 REILLY, P.J. ( concurring ). I concur but for a reason other than those stated by the majority. Preemption laws, whether they be for communication towers or landfills, are promulgated to address needs that benefit the public but are subject to a “NIMBY” response

— yes, we need cell towers, but “not in my backyard.” Neither T

- Mobile nor Eco

- Site argues that the public’s communication needs are not being met by the current towers in the Town. See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) (2018). I would affirm on the Town’s fourth reason
for denial of the conditional use permit (CUP): (1) that Eco

- Site did not explain its efforts at collocation, i.e., Eco

- Site did not explain why T

- Mobile and others could not utilize existing locations (the water tower that T

- Mobile’s equipment is on), and ( 2) that its “search ring” was “unnecessarily small.” See W IS

. S TAT

. § 66.0404(2)(b)6.

¶ 29 T

- Mobile has its antenna 1300 feet from the proposed site under contract through 2031. While T

- Mobile can save approximately $230,000 by becoming th e anchor tenant on Eco

- Site’s tower and Eco

- Site will profit by selling the remaining locations on its tower to other communication companies, there has been no showing that without Eco

- Site’s tower the communication needs of the
Town would not be met. 1 T he fact that T

- Mobile wants to save money and Eco

-

1 T

- Mobile paid the Village of Grafton $35,525.86 in 2017 for its lease. T

- Mobile’s savings would be approximately $230,000 if it moved to the Eco

- Site tower. Eco

- Site explained that the proposed tower will “accommodate future collocation opportunities for other carriers.”No. 2018AP580(C)

2 Site wants to make money is not a legitimate reason to override zoning regulations.

¶ 30 Eco

- Site argues that state and federal legislation bans the Town from considering the views and opinio ns of the residents in close proximity to the proposed tower (i.e., that the tower is ugly and the mere talk of a tower has decreased property values). See W IS

. S TAT

. § 66.0404(4)(g). Eco

- Site’s concerns might have merit if no communication service sites were available in the Town, but when a governmental body has already provided areas for the infrastructure to provide communication needs in the area, 2 then communication companies are rightfully required to abide by zoning laws and utilize the sites prov ided.

¶ 31 My fear is that by adopting either the argument of Eco

- Site or the reasoning of the majority, we end up with a conclusion that all property owners have the right to put up a tower.

2 Eco

- Site makes no argument that the Town is requiring that the communication equipment may only be placed on property owned by the Town

. See W IS

. S TAT

. § 66.0404(4)(k).