BackServices › Details

Wireless Communications Facility Siting Services

Snell & Wilmer has extensive experience assisting wireless communications carriers with deploying antenna facilities throughout the West. Our attorneys handle permit application proceedings and appeals of denied applications and advocate changes to local wireless siting ordinances. Our attorneys work closely with our clients' legal, marketing, and engineering team members to develop the best strategy for advocating changes to restrictive wireless ordinances.

Our approach includes:

  • Analyzing each ordinance against the Telecom Act and identifying provisions that are in violation or in need of revision
  • Assisting in developing a strategy for responding to interests that are advocating for excessive siting restrictions
  • Using ordinance language and arguments from past matters and from client's resources to ensure efficiency
  • Confronting local government attorneys and planning staff as directed by our clients in providing ordinance comments
  • For appeals of denied permit applications, we provide our clients with a fair, honest and objective analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the record and the likelihood of success on appeal under Section 332(c) of the 1996 Telecom Act and other state law claims.

Representative Experience

  • Assisted a national wireless telecommunications carrier in modifying proposed siting ordinances in Arizona, Colorado, and Utah
  • Represented a national wireless telecommunications carrier in writing a model wireless communications facilities siting ordinance for the Utah League of Cities and Towns
  • Assisted a national wireless telecommunications carrier in direct negotiations with Peoria, Arizona and Gilbert, Arizona as well as negotiations and a law suit in Tucson, Arizona that resulted in favorable changes to Pima County law concerning siting
  • Assisted a national wireless telecommunications carrier with their wireless clients in advocating how the proposed ordinance provisions were preempted by or in violation of Section 332(c) of the 1996 Telecom Act
  • Handled more than 85 contentious wireless communications facility siting matters in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada and Utah, including litigating Section 332(c) claims under the 1996 Telecom Act against local governments
  • Represented group of national wireless carries in Utah Public Service Commission wireless utility pole attachment rulemaking proceedings