6.8. Antennas.
A.R.S. § 9-591 et seq. (cities and towns may not enter into exclusive arrangements with wireless providers for use of a right-of-way; the rates or fees that may be charged by cities and towns for use of a right-of-way are subject to certain limitations; a new, replacement or modified utility pole that is associated with the collocation of small wireless facilities and is installed in a right-of-way is not subject to zoning review and approval if the pole meets certain height restrictions; new small wireless facilities collocated on a utility pole in the right-of-way are not subject to zoning review and approval if they do not exceed certain height limitations; cities and towns may require an application for the installation of new, replacement or modified utility poles and must approve an application, except under certain circumstances; a small wireless facility is classified as a permitted use in all zoning districts and is not subject to zoning review or approval if it is collocated in a right-of-way in any zone)
A.R.S. § 11-1801 et seq. (counties may not enter into exclusive arrangements with wireless providers for use of a right-of-way; a county may require a permit and charge a fee for processing an application by a wireless provider using a right-of-way, subject to certain exceptions and limitations; a small wireless facility is classified as a permitted use in all zoning districts and is not subject to zoning review or approval if it is collocated in a right-of-way)
T-Mobile South, LLC, v. City of Roswell, 574 U.S. 293, 135 S. Ct. 808, 190 L. Ed. 2d 679 (2015) (the Telecommunications Act requires localities to provide reasons when they deny cell phone tower siting applications, but such reasons do not need to be provided in the written denial letter or notice itself; a locality may satisfy its obligations under the Act if it states its reasons with sufficient clarity in some other written record issued essentially contemporaneously with the denial)
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113, 125 S. Ct. 1453, 161 L. Ed. 2d 316 (2005) (Section 1983 remedies are not available to a licensed amateur radio operator who was denied a conditional use permit to use his existing 52.5-foot antenna for commercial purposes in violation of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996)
City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020) (overturning FCC regulation provisions dealing with the authority of local governments in the...
