Opinion ID: 171429
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: T-Mobile's Special Use Permit Application

Text: On December 9, 2005, T-Mobile filed an application for a Special Use Permit, requesting permission to build a 120-foot-tall telecommunications tower to provide adequate residential and vehicular cell phone coverage in the vicinity of the proposed site. The application identified other structures (including a water tower and an existing monopole at a high school) within a mile of the site that could be used as alternatives to the proposed site, but rejected each of them as inadequate. The application also included propagation studies showing existing coverage as well as anticipated coverage with the new tower. The United Government Planning Department Staff (Staff) advised rejecting the application. The Staff Report (Report), issued on March 13, 2006, considered numerous factors, several having particular relevance here. The Report noted, in considering the character of the neighborhood and the use of the property in question, that the neighborhood was somewhat commercial in nature and that the proposed site (which was zoned residential) was owned by and used as a church. The Report also considered the proposal's compatibility with and detrimental effect on nearby property, stating that the tower would be the tallest structure in the area and may be considered unsightly by many. Furthermore, the Report, in considering whether the proposed use would be reasonably necessary for the welfare of the public, stated that the Staff doubted that there was a sufficient deficiency in cell phone performance to require a new tower. Following the United Government Planning Commission's (Commission) decision to postpone action on the application pending further information from T-Mobile, T-Mobile submitted new propagation maps and the results of a drive test. T-Mobile stated that the drive test confirmed the existence of a significant gap in cell phone coverage, and, therefore, the need for the proposed tower, while the Staff updated its report by stating that the test showed adequate service. The application was then taken up for consideration by the Commission and the Unified Government Board of Commissioners (Board). The Commission addressed the T-Mobile application on April 10, 2006. Following testimony by T-Mobile and the Planning Director, the Commission recommended rejecting the T-Mobile application. The Board then took up the application for final consideration on May 25, 2006, hearing more testimony from both T-Mobile and the Planning Director. The Planning Director testified that T-Mobile's drive test showed no dropped calls. In turn, T-Mobile explained that the drive test was not a test of dropped calls in the area, but rather simply confirmed in the field what our [propagation] maps already told us, that we had a hole in coverage in this particular area. T-Mobile introduced evidence from tests showing over 1,800 dropped calls in the vicinity during one week, and over 2,700 dropped calls during a different week. The Planning Director responded by stating that T-Mobile had 280 minutes of use per dropped call in the area, which he thought was pretty good. In response, T-Mobile stressed that its dropped-call numbers fell below the industry average of 310 minutes of use per dropped call. At no time during the hearings did neighbors oppose the proposal on the basis of its aesthetics. The Board denied the application, citing three primary reasons. First, the Board concluded that T-Mobile had failed to show that denial of the application would prohibit the provision of personal wireless services. According to the Board, [d]rive studies indicated that there were no dropped calls in the area surveyed in stark contrast to studies submitted for other applications for cellular towers. Indicating zero or limited dropped calls seems to indicate this tower is not necessary for the convenience of the public. Second, the Board stated that the proposed 120-foot tower was not the least intrusive means of fulfilling a gap, if any exists, in T-Mobile's services. The Board cited the Code's preference for commercial districts over residential districts, the indirectness of the relation between the proposed tower and the existing use as a church, and the aesthetic impact of the proposed tower. Third, the Board stated that the Commission had considered the Golden factors (factors that Kansas courts have recommended that cities review when deciding whether to grant special use permits) and had decided to reject T-Mobile's application.