to fill. This is the same general conclusion found in the Center for Municipal <br />Solutions report. <br /> <br />Cellular Wireless Antennas: Federal Appeals Court Case Law - Citations and <br />Excerpts (Source: http://www.antennafreeunion.org/article_appeals.htm) <br /> <br />Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Willoth <br /> <br />176 F.3d 360 (2nd Cir. 1999) <br /> <br />"We do not read the [Telecommunications Act of 1996] to allow the goals of <br />increased competition and rapid deployment of new technology to trump all <br />other important considerations, including the preservation of the autonomy of <br />states and municipalities." <br /> <br />"A local government may also reject an application that seeks permission to <br />construct more towers than the minimum required to provide wireless telephone <br />services in a given area. A denial of such a request is not a prohibition of personal <br />wireless services as long as fewer towers would provide users in the given area <br />with some ability to reach a cell site." <br /> <br />"Furthermore, once an area is sufficiently serviced by a wireless service provider, <br />the right to deny applications becomes broader." <br /> <br />precludes denying an application for a facility that is the least intrusive means for <br />closing a significant gap in a <br />access to land-lines." <br /> <br />APT Pittsburgh Partnership v. Penn Township <br /> <br />196 F.3d 469 (3rd Cir. 1999) <br /> <br />". . . [A]n unsuccessful provider applicant must show . . . that its facility will fill an <br />existing significant gap in the ability of remote users to access the national <br />telephone network. . . . Not e a <br />gap in the service available to remote <br />will thus have to include evidence that the area the new facility will serve is not <br />already served by another provider." <br /> <br />Cellular Telephone Co. v. Zoning Board of Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus <br /> <br />197 F.3d 64 (3rd Cir. 1999) <br /> <br />Fodor & Associates - Page 8 <br />