I NEED HELP, THEY ARE TRYING TO BUILD A CELL PHONE TOWER NEXT TO MY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.

FIGHT THE CELL TOWER SITING!

This page is under construction.

ULDC (UNITED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE) GUIDELINES, STATE AND COUNTY ZONING RIGHTS

THE CITY OF GLENDALE FOUGHT T-MOBILE! THEIR ARGUMENTS WERE CLEAR, CONCISE, AND STRONG. T-MOBILE DROPPED THEIR REQUEST TO TOWER SIT IN GLENDALE. - www.getthecelloutofhere.com

Why Did T-Mobile drop their plan to sit a cell tower in residential property? The Gendale Community united in effort to prove not only a drop in property value due to the siting of the proposed T-Mobile cell phone tower, but also safety reason and cause. A community must prove in their appeal, that safety issues, protection issues, privacy issues, and investment issues present a very real and tangible problem for home owners living close to a cell tower.

The Glendale community website (www.getthecelloutofhere.com ) states, "The reason for this is a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in San Diego, where Spring lost and the residents/city prevailed - setting the precedent that cities can set up reasonable guiledines as to the placement of residential cell towers."

By Jane Celltower

"The fraudualent actions of big industry cell phone giants, and many city, county, and local government officials, often have the laxidazical enforcement of building and ULCD zoning codes. Because of new laws, cell phone companies are taking advantage of good, law abiding, tax paying citizens. You can read her real time events and reports, interviews, and findings, as she puts the pieces together, in order to solve the paradoxical puzzle, and answer the question,"How could they get away with building a 155 foot (or taller), monotower cell tower within residential property?" - Jane Celltower.

TRIAL AND APPEAL OF ZONING CASES

Using the state of Georgia as our example, Peter Ralph Olson of Jenkins & Olson, "Zoning 101: Basic Georgia Zoning Law, writes, "The presumption that a governmental zoning decision is valid can be overcome only by a plaintiff landowner's showing by clear and convincing evidence that the zoning classification is a signifiant detriment to him, and is insubstantial related to the public health, safety, morality, and welfare. Only after both of these showings are made is a governimg authority required to come forward with evidence to justify a zoning ordinance as reasonably related to the public interest, (Dekalf County v. Dobson, 267 Ga. 624, 482 S. E. 2d 239 - 1997). Under the Georgia Constitution, the issue of "Takings" is a blancing test, balancing the detriment to landowner with the benefit to the health, safety and welfare of the public (Barrett V. Hamby, 235 Ga. 262, 291 S.E.2d 399 (1975) and Dekalb County v. Dobson, 267 Ga. 482 S. E. 2d 239 - 1997).

Zoning is determined and deligated by your local governments (i.e., municipalities, counties, and/or city), as deemed by the Constitution, as part of Home Rule. Attorney Peter Olsen states, "However, state can impose procedures governing the exercise of the zoning power. The state has adopted precedures governing the making of a zoning decision, and the local government is required to strictly follow the procedures set out in the Zoning Procedures Law, O.C.G.A. Title 36, Chapter 66." Cited were McClure V. Davidson, 258 Ga. 706, 373 S.E. 2d 317 (1988), and Tilley Properties, Inc. V. Bartow County, 261 Ga. 153, 401 S.E. 2d 527 (1991)."

The case of Cherokee County et al, v. Martin, 253 Ga. App. 395, 559 S.E. 2nd 138 (2002), gives concrete evidence of the Court of Appeals difficulties that can occur due to insufficently detailing precise zoning conditions. From my ongoing research, zoning violations occur often. When I began my research on Feburary 1, 2010, the Internet was a buz with people posting comment, voice, alarm, and needed help, in order to fight cell phone company take-overs of residential property access. My email contact news reports from readers, sound off much the same response.

A reader comments, "From the momment I saw the hidden "Stealth 155 foot Cell Tower" at my wooded back yard property line, I knew something was amiss. Having interviewed two of my neighbors who did receive the deceptive certified mail notice from the T-Mobile representative, they were not informed or educated about their rights to appeal and contest the cell phone tower siting. To quote one neighbor, "....we were told there was nothing you could do about it." As Olson states within his article, "The Use Of Zoning Conditions And Impact Fees," The scope and legality of a proper zoning condition appears to be somewhat a mystery to many local governments, leading to the enactment of improper zoning conditions on a frequent basis."

TRIAL AND APPEAL OF ZONING CASES

Peter Ralph Olson of Jenkins & Olson, "Zoning 101: Basic Georgia Zoning Law, writes, "The presumption that a governmental zoning decision is valid can be overcome only by a plaintiff landowner's showing by clear and convincing evidence that the zoning classification is a signifiant detriment to him, and is insubstantial related tot he public health, safety, morality, and welfare. Only after both of these showings are made is a governimg authority required to come forward with evidence to justify a zoning ordinance as reasonably related to the public interest, (Dekalf County v. Dobson, 267 Ga. 624, 482 S. E. 2d 239 - 1997). Under the Georgia Constitution, the issue of "Takings" is a blancing test, balancing the detriment to landowner with the benefit to the health, safety and welfare of the public (Barrett V. Hamby, 235 Ga. 262, 291 S.E.2d 399 (1975) and Dekalb County v. Dobson, 267 Ga. 482 S. E. 2d 239 - 1997).