Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/03/2010

Home

April 25, 2010 ~ Volume 4 ~ No. 8 ~ Zoning Bulletin placement, construction or modification of personal wireless service ~'~ facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions that otherwise comply with the Federal Communication Commission's emissions regulations." (See 47 U.S.C.A. § 332(c)(7)(B) (specifying that State and local governments "shall not" make such actions).) Here, Dxago did not allege any of those actions or failures by the city. Therefore, his action failed. Accordingly, the court dismissed it. See also: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Cal. v. Abrams, 544- U.S. 113, 125 S. Ct. 1453, 161 L. Ed. 2d 316 (2005). See also: Touche Ross ~' Co. a Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 99 S. Ct. 2479, 61 L. Ed. 2d 82, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P 96894 (1979). Case Note: The court said that not only did Drago not have an explicit right of action under § 332(c)(7)(B)(v), he also did not have an implicit private right of action. The language of § 332(c) (7)(B)(v) did not "allow someone to bring an action in federal court for adverse affects flowing from the granting of a request to construct personal wireless service facilities." Nor was that Con- (~ ~ gress' intention. Rather, said the court, the TCA was intended to ` "encourage" the rapid expansion of private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies. ' The federal cause of action in § 332(c)(7)(B)(v) "serves as an en- forcemeat mechanism ...." It may be used only by: (1) "pro- eiders whose requests are denied without good reason or are left to languish before local planning boards"; or (2) "parties who are adversely affected when the local planning boards frustrate the- e, growth of access to wireless services." The court said it "would ', defeat the purpose of the TCA if the cause of action [under § 332(c)(7)(B)(v)] could also be used to challenge local planning boards' decision to grant construction of new facilities." Uses in General-Homeowners rent their lakefront house for short-term periods - Town says such use is commercial and in violation of the zoning ordinance Citation: Siwinski v. Town of Ogden Dunes, 922 N.E.2d 751 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) 6 © 2010 Thomson Reuters 60.