Source: https://www.lawmoss.com/people-anthony-a-dorland
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 22:19:38+00:00

Document:
Tony’s real estate practice includes the negotiation of real estate agreements – including commercial leasing, related due diligence, and title risk resolution – with private parties; public utilities; public universities; and local, state, and federal governments and agencies. He also represents clients in obtaining zoning and land development approvals from all levels of government and in real estate litigation. In his administrative and regulatory practice, Tony addresses areas of environmental and telecommunications law, including the defense and resolution of local, state, and federal enforcement actions.
Helped client win bid and negotiated agreement for the development of wireless infrastructure throughout the University of Nebraska–Lincoln campus.
Obtained all the necessary agreements, permits, and zoning approvals from the local, county, and state agencies for the subdivision of lakefront property.
Defeated an encroaching development that interfered with client’s property rights.
Tony Dorland is pleased to present the blog series, Tower Law Update. Tony summarizes recent judicial cases and legislation related to the contracting, zoning, environmental review, constructions, and operation of wireless antennas, towers, and facilities.
Recent antenna, tower and wireless cases.
Federal District Court decides that certain wireless right-of-way installations are not subject to City's zoning regulations pursuant to City contract or Virginia state law.
CROWN CASTLE NG ATLANTIC LLC v. CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, CIVIL NO. 4:15CV93.
In a case that has been appealed to the 4th Circuit, the District Court found that the City’s Franchise Agreement with Crown Castle does not subject Crown Castle to the City’s zoning ordinance or zoning approval. The District Court held that the City’s actions to require Crown Castle to comply with the zoning ordinance and either remove its equipment, comply with conditions described in the City Code, or obtain conditional use permits are in violation of the Franchise Agreement.
The Court stated that even if the Franchise Agreement did subject Crown Castle to the zoning ordinance, the requirements and restrictions the City seeks to impose would be inappropriate as Crown Castle’s services fit within the zoning ordinance’s definition of “local utilities”; these local utilities are permitted uses in every zoning district in the City and do not require additional zoning approval or conditional use permits.
10th Circuit holds that the lack of reliable in-building or in-vehicle service is a legitimate consideration in determining whether a coverage gap is significant. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC, v. VILLAGE OF CORRALES (10th Cir., March 8, 2016).
When the Village of Corrales denied AT&T a special permit to construct a 65-foot tall cell phone tower, AT&T filed suit, asserting (among other things) that the Village's denial amounted to an effective prohibition of personal wireless services in violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA). The district court agreed, granted summary judgment in favor of AT&T, and ordered the Village to approve the necessary permits. The Village appealed, and the 10th Circuit affirmed.
City’s denial of zoning permit for free-standing bell tower on Church property violated Telecommunications Act of 1996.
CELLULAR SOUTH REAL ESTATE, INC. d/b/a CELLULAR SOUTH v. CITY OF GERMANTOWN, (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, June 22, 2015).
The issues before the Court were as follows: (a) whether the decision to deny Cellular South's Application was not supported by "substantial evidence contained in a written record," in accordance with 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii), and (b) whether the Board's denial of Cellular South's application effectively prohibited the provision of personal wireless services in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).
In Smith Communications, LLC v. Washington County, Arkansas (8th Circuit, May 12, 2015), the Court held that a locality may rely on detailed meeting minutes to provide its written reasons for denial so long as the locality's reasons are stated clearly enough to enable judicial review, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in T-Mobile S., LLC v. City of Roswell, Ga., 135 S. Ct. 808, 816 (2015).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 332
 § 332
 v. 
 v.