Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin March 25, 2010 (Volume 4 ~ No. 6 <br />1(~ "agency had a broad grant of authority" The court "rejected such a <br />sweeping rule." <br />Telecommunications Act-Board denies <br />telecommunication provider's permit <br />application <br />Provider contends meeting minutes denying application <br />failed to meet Telecommunication Act's "in writing" <br />requirement . <br />Citation: Helcher v. Dearborn County, 2010 WL 431697 (7th Cir. 2010) <br />The Seventh U.S. Circuit bas jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and <br />Wisconsin. <br />SEVENTH U.S. CIRCUIT (ILLINOIS, ]NDIANA, WISCONSIN) <br />(02/09/10)-This case addressed the issue of whether the minutes of a <br />meeting at which a zoning.board denied a telecommunication provider's <br />permit application satisfied the.Telecommunication Act's "in writing" <br />~~ requirement. <br />The Background/Faas: Cincinna4i Bell Wireless, LLC ("Bell") is a <br />wireless telecommunications provider.. Bell wanted to close a gap in cell- <br />phone signal coderage in the county. To do so, Bell sought to build a cell- <br />phone tower on agriculturally zoned property (the "Property") in the <br />county. The Property was owned by Dan and Merry Helcher. <br />The county zoning ordinance (the "Ordinance") regulated the place- <br />. ment, construction, and modification of cellphone towers "in order to <br />minimize their `negative impact on the character and environment of <br />the [c]ounty and to protect the health, safety and welfare of the pub- <br />lic."' The Ordinance required that Bell obtain a conditional use permit <br />("CUP") from the county zoning board (the "Boazd') in order to build <br />the tower on the Property. Bell applied for a CUP. <br />The Boazd denied Bell's application. The Board also denied a request <br />by Bell and the Helchers for the Board to reconsider the denial of the <br />CUP. <br />Bell and -the Helchers (hereinafter, collectively, "Bell") then filed a <br />legal complaint in U.S. District Court against the Board. Among other <br />things, Bell alleged that the minutes of the meeting (the "Minutes") at <br />which the Boazd denied Bell's permit application did not constitute a suf- <br />ficient "written decision" as required by the federal Telecommunications <br />~C J) Act (the "Act") (47 U.S.C.A. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii)). <br />The Act requires that "[a]ny decision by a State or local government <br />or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or mod- <br />© 2010 Thomson Reuters S <br />43 <br />