<div dir="ltr">A couple of points to consider, from our Rathkopf treatise <a href="https://store.legal.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Treatises/Rathkopfs-The-Law-of-Zoning-and-Planning-4th/p/100027828">https://store.legal.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Treatises/Rathkopfs-The-Law-of-Zoning-and-Planning-4th/p/100027828</a>:<div><br></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:0.5in;margin:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA)<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">^{^{<span style="font-size:12pt">[1]</span>}}</a>mandates that federal agencies consider the effects on historic properties
when the agencies develop, assist, approve, or license projects, and that those
agencies provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a
reasonable opportunity to comment. The ACHP, in support of providing full coverage
of internet and cellular service, coordinates with federal agencies including
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the United States Department of
Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS), the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA), the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA).  The ACHP provides guidance on its
review process.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><span class="gmail-MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="gmail-MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12pt">[2]</span></span></span></a></p>

<div><br clear="all">

<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%">



<div id="gmail-ftn1">

<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="gmail-MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span class="gmail-MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12pt">[1]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size:12pt"> 54 U.S.C.A. §300101 et seq.</span></p>

</div>

<div id="gmail-ftn2">

<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="gmail-MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span class="gmail-MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12pt">[2]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size:12pt"> Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Broadband Infrastructure
and Section 106 Review (undated).</span></p>

</div>

</div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:0.5in;margin:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Moreover, under the
FCC’s 2018 Small Cell Order, municipalities have very limited non-proprietary
regulatory authority to manage access and use of public rights-of-way for
wireless facilities. As a result, municipalities cannot deny access – they can
regulate the reasonable time, place, and manner of small cell installations in
accordance with federal law, and these regulations must incorporate
clearly-defined and ascertainable standards that do not materially impact the
deployment of wireless facilities (particularly in comparison to cable and other
wireline broadband infrastructure).<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="gmail-MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="gmail-MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12pt">[1]</span></span></span></a><span style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"></span></p>

<div><br clear="all">

<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%">



<div id="gmail-ftn1">

<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="gmail-MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span class="gmail-MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12pt">[1]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size:12pt"> See WT Docket No. 17-79/WC Docket No. 17-84, FCC DA
18-133 (September 27, 2018), which streamlined local review of Small Cell facilities
and services, including preventing the prohibition of services; preempting
right-of-way access fees; preventing unreasonable zoning restrictions; and
adopting a shot clock (90 days for new builds; 60 days for collocations); <span style="color:black;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">City of Portland
v. U.S., 969 F3d 1020 (2020) (holding the standardization of small cell review
by local governments).</span></span></p>

</div>

</div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">And see <a name="_Hlk122529140">Crown Castle
Fiber LLC v. City of Charleston</a>, 2021 WL 538148 (D.S.C. 2021) (upholding
city's denial of a telecommunication services provider's request to install and
operate small cells based on “aesthetic and preservationist concerns”).</span><br></div><div><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><br></span></div><div><span class="gmail-MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span class="gmail-MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12pt">[1]</span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> See ExteNet Systems, LLC v. Vill. of Kings Points,
21-cv-5772 (KAM)(ST) (E.D.N.Y. 2022) (Planning Board cannot deny a Special
Permit for a Small Cell roll out on private streets based on the public
necessity standard applied to applicants for variances in New York; Telecommunication
Act’s effective prohibition of service standard is inapplicable to the Special
Permit review process). </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><br></span></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">But see City of Austin v. Abbott, 385 F. Supp. 3d 537 (W.D.
Tex. 2019) (Telecommunications Act did not preempt state law limiting fees
local governments could charge for permitting and providing standards for
installation of small cell nodes on utility poles and traffic signals in the
public right of way).</p></div><div><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><br></span></div><div><span class="gmail-MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span class="gmail-MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12pt">[1]</span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> See WT Docket No. 17-79/WC Docket No. 17-84, FCC DA
18-133 (September 27, 2018), which streamlined local review of Small Cell facilities
and services, including preventing the prohibition of services; preempting
right-of-way access fees; preventing unreasonable zoning restrictions; and
adopting a shot clock (90 days for new builds; 60 days for collocations); <span style="color:black;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">City of Portland
v. U.S., 969 F3d 1020 (2020) (holding the standardization of small cell review
by local governments).</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span style="color:black;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><br></span></span></div><div><i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"> </span></i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">ExteNet
Systems, Inc. v. City of Cambridge, MA, 481 F. Supp. 3d 41 (D. Mass. 2020) (“because
the Small Cell Wireless Policy is not an outright ban on the provision of
personal wireless services, the validity of the Policy hinges on ‘whether the
[Policy] effectively prohibits the provision of wireless services.’”); </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span style="color:black;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><br></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span style="color:black;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><br></span></span></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black;border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0in;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">New Cingular Wireless
PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility v. Town of Colonie</span><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">,
20-cv-1388 (NAM/ATB) (N.D.N.Y. 2022) (Town’s Zoning Code inappropriately
prohibited installation of Small Cell Facility in a right-of-way);</span></font><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:16px">(in part, summary judgment that Defendant failed to act within 60-day shot clock for Small Cell Application); </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span style="color:black;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><br></span></span></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><br></span></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><br></span></font></div><div><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">ExteNet Systems, Inc. v. Village of Plandome,
2021 WL 449453 (E.D.N.Y. 2021) (in denying approval for Small Cells, Planning
Board did not cite substantial evidence regarding concerns of aesthetic impact
and property values; and Planning Board did not sufficiently show that
applicant filed to establish a coverage gap);</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span><font face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><br></span></font></div><div><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Regards,</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Dwight Merriam, FAICP</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><a href="http://www.dwightmerriam.com">www.dwightmerriam.com</a></span></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><br></span></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><br></span></font></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 10:40 AM George Forcier via MassPlanners <<a href="mailto:massplanners@masscptc.org">massplanners@masscptc.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><font size="4">Conway, a western Mass. hilltown of about 2,000 people, is considering amending zoning bylaws to regulate 5G “small cell” telecommunication facilities. Although we are told that 5G may never come to rural towns, some have suggested it may eventually, especially along state highways. So, any suggestions from forward-thinking, perhaps more urban towns who have tackled this already would be appreciated.</font><div><br></div><div><br></div></div>-- <br>
MassPlanners mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:MassPlanners@masscptc.org" target="_blank">MassPlanners@masscptc.org</a><br>
<a href="http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div>