Official NHgov website
nh New Hampshire
home about oep programs news and events funding and job opportunities resource library contact OEP search


OEP Homepage
About OEP
OEP Programs
News & Events
Funding/Job Opportunities
Resource Library
Contact OEP
Search OEP

OEP Recovery Icon

ARRA logo
  OEP
Resource Library

Reference Library
Personal Wireless Service Facilities
General Resources | Court Decisions | NHDHR "Section 106" review forms | Disguising | Models | Local Examples | Other Resources
General Resources

Court Decisions

  • Neil Nevins & a. v. New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development & a. Argued: November 14, 2001 Decided: March 11, 2002 (Case involving the communications tower on Mt. Kearsarge)
  • "Federal Court Upholds Only One of Five Reasons to Deny Cell Tower Permit", USCOC of New Hampshire, RSA #2, Inc., (dlb/a US Cellular) v. City of Franklin, New Hampshire Town and City, March 2006
  • New Cingular v. Candia, NH, et al. Adobe Acrobat Reader Symbol
    09-CV-387-SM 08/11/10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Civil No. 09-cv-387-SM Opinion No. 2010 DNH 145
  • New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, v. Town of Greenfield Adobe Acrobat Reader Symbol
    09-CV-399-SM 09/09/10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Civil No.09-cv-399-SM Opinion No. 2010 DNH 162
    • ZBA's cell tower decision reversed for inadequate written findings (LGC summary)
    • On September 9, 2010, the US District Court for the District of New Hampshire granted summary judgment in favor of AT&T and against the Town of Greenfield and its Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) in a case in which AT&T challenged the denial of its application for an area variance to install a 100-foot cell tower in a residential area. The court found in favor of AT&T because the "ZBA’s public-interest determination relies on circular reasoning and fails to recognize that enhanced cellular telephone service and co-location are decidedly in the public interest." The court concluded that, "[c]areful review of the record ... demonstrates that the ZBA’s determinations either fail to satisfy the written-decision requirement, or are not supported by an adequate quantum of evidence," and that the "fundamental problem with the ZBA’s decision is that it fails to put the correct evidence on the proper scales in the first instance." The court ordered the ZBA to "promptly authorize construction of the subject tower as proposed." [Arent Fox LLP]
    • Because the defendant ZBA’s denial of a variance for a 100-foot cell tower failed to satisfy the written-decision requirement of the Telecommunications Act and was not supported by substantial evidence, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and ordered the defendants to authorize construction of the tower, as proposed by the plaintiff. 26 pages. Chief Judge Steven J. McAuliffe.
      [NHBA]
  • Industrial Communications and Electronics, Inc. v. Alton, et al. Adobe Acrobat Reader Symbol
    U.S. Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit, No. 10-1738, 5/19/2011
  • Industrial Communication and Electronics, Inc. v. Alton
    U.S. District Court, Dist. of N.H., No. 07-cv-082-JL, 9/21/2012
  • New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. Stoddard Adobe Acrobat Reader Symbol
    U.S. District Court, D.N.H., No. 11-CV-388-JL, 2/16/2012
    • ZBA decision to grant rehearing may violate FCC “Shot Clock” for cell tower application if case is prolonged past 150 days (LGC summary)
      The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) is intended to facilitate the national growth of the wireless telecommunications industry, including a mandate to municipalities to accommodate construction of telecommunications towers. 47 U.S.C. 332 © (7). Among other restrictions, the TCA provides that land use boards must act on applications for cell towers within "a reasonable period after the request is duly filed." In 2009 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued an order, known as the "Shot Clock Ruling," which creates presumptions that (a) 90 days is a reasonable period to make a decision on an application for a new antenna on an existing facility (known as "co-location"), and (b) 150 days is reasonable for construction of a new wireless tower. If those deadlines are not met, applicants may sue in federal or state courts, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 332©(7)(B)(v), and the court will presume that the delay is unreasonable unless the municipality can prove otherwise.
    • The initial application review and any rehearings by the board must take place within the 90 or 150 day time periods in order to avoid unreasonalbe delay. "Accordingly, the Shot Clock Ruling's 150-day deadline for the processing of wireless communications facility siting applications encompasses not only the time it takes a local government to reach an initial decision on an application, but the time it takes to complete the rehearing process set forth in N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 677:2 and 677:3 as well."

NH Division of Historical Resources "Section 106" review forms

  • "Section 106" Review and Compliance Information Cover Sheet Microsoft Word Symbol
  • Criteria Microsoft Word Symbol For Evaluating The Effect Of Telecommunications Projects On Historical Resources
  • Supplemental Microsoft Word Symbol "Section 106" Review Materials For Telecommunications Projects
Disguising
Models
  • Model Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance Microsoft Word Symbol Prepared by Carol Ogilvie, Senior Planner, Southwest Region Planning Commission, Keene, NH
  • Application For Telecommunications Conditional Use Permit Microsoft Word Symbol Prepared by Carol Ogilvie, Senior Planner, Southwest Region Planning Commission, Keene, NH
  • "Meeting the Challenges of Zoning in The Information Age: Planning for Wireless Communications Facilities" Timothy J. Thompson, Ball State University Department of Urban Planning, Undergraduate Thesis, April 28, 1997
  • Wireless Broadband Ordinance Guidelines Available Adobe Acrobat Reader Symbol
    A Municipal Fixed Wireless Broadband Facility Ordinance Guideline has been developed by Commission staff in conjunction with members of the Pinnacle Mountain Broadband Committee. The Guideline document is modeled in part after language developed by the Town of Fitzwilliam in order to provide a mechanism to allow fixed wireless broadband facilities (which include towers, relay sites and antenna array), under a separate permitting mechanism from a community's wireless telecommunications facility ordinance (which have usually been designed specifically for cell towers). Economic development planning efforts of the SWRPC have indicated the importance of greater deployment of broadband services to the rural communities of Southwest New Hampshire. The benefits of having reliable broadband internet services will foster rural economic development, small business growth, increase property values, and improve quality of life. For more information, including the recommendations of the Guideline document, please contact Eric R. Smith, AICP, of Commission staff. more... Adobe Acrobat Reader Symbol
Examples of town and city regulations
(Users are advised to check with each municipality directly to confirm that the example listed here is the most recent version. Also, see the listing of municipalities with telecommunication ordinances. All examples are Microsoft Word documents Microsoft Word Symbol unless otherwise noted.)
Web resources (these links will send you to Web sites out of the control of the Office of Energy and Planning)

Adobe Acrobat Reader Symbol Adobe Acrobat Reader format. You can download a free reader from Adobe.

Microsoft Word Symbol Microsoft Word format. You can download a free reader from Microsoft.
Reference Library Subject List
 
state seal NH.gov | Privacy Statement | Accessibility Policy | Site Map