Kentucky mulls bill to bring siting decisions to 'community level.'

Mobile Phone News, Feb 2, 1998 by Stephen Bouvet, John Sullivan, Ellen B. Mullally

Kentucky's House Bill 168 affirms the right of planning authorities to regulate the siting of towers in accordance with locally adopted planning and zoning regulations. It then requires carriers to submit a proposal and grid map to the local planning body before applying to the state public service commission (PSC) for the required certificate of necessity and convenience. The local body has 60 days to make its decision. The bill would bar the PSC from granting the certificate until the local planning body has approved the tower, or its denial has been vacated by the court. The bill also gives localities the right to demand collocation of cell sites.

...Establishing Cooperative Framework At Local Level

The bill's principal sponsor, Rep. Paul Marcotte, (R-Union County) said the bill was designed to guarantee "local input." Marcotte argued that localities generally are not against the tower siting process in any form; they simply "want some input into it," and while the Telecommunications Act of 1996 prevents arbitrary denial of permits "[the states] can review [an application] in light of the local comprehensive plan." If carriers start the process at the state level and show up in a town with state certification for a particular site, the carrier and the zoning body are automatically at odds. The locality's usual option is an intrinsically adversarial appeals process. "We feel frankly that there'd be much better communications, and [carriers] would get better results," if the process began with localities, Marcotte said.

The bill had its first hearing before the assembly's Counties and Special Districts Committee, and was praised by "the League of Cities, the Magistrates' Association, and a number of municipalities," said Marcotte.

Nevertheless, Marcotte is revising the bill to address concerns raised by the wireless industry. "We've run it by the local communities and they feel those concerns are reasonable and we can actually address them without gutting the bill," he said. Changes include stronger language emphasizing the 60-day period in which localities must respond to an application, moving appeals from local circuit courts to the Franklin County Circuit Court-which currently hears PSC cases-and establishing a standardized form for localities that matches the forms used by the PSC.