Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/10/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin June 10, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 11 deliberations." The court concluded that evidence showed that Longhi's nega- tive continents influenced the votes of other members of the Commission, as she had participated in and "dominated" the discussion on Village's applications. Accordingly, the court concluded that Village did not receive a fair hearing to which it was entitled. See also: Moraski v. Connecticut Bd. of Examiners of Embalmers and Fu- neral Directors, 291 Conn. 242, 967 A.2d 1199 (2009). See also: Clisham v. Board of Police Com'rs ofBorough of Naugatuck, 223 Conn. 354, 613 A.2d 254 (1992). T .I -co unictins r ct—Town nies cell hon tower construction a plication Applicant says denial is an effective prohibition of wireless services in violation of Telecommunications Act Citation: Green Mountain Realty Corp. v. Leonard, 2014 WL 1613704 (1st Cir. 2014) The First Circuit has jurisdiction over Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island. FIRST CIRCUIT (MASSACHSUETTS) (04/23/14)—This case addressed the issue of whether a town's denial of a proposed cell phone tower consti- tuted an effective prohibition of wireless services in violation of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Background/Facts: Green Mountain Realty Corp. ("GMR") owned and managed personal wireless communication facilities i.e., cell phone towers. GMR leased spaces on those towers to wireless carriers, who in turn placed antennas on the towers to provide wireless coverage for their customers. GMR leased a 2,700-square-foot area of land in Milton, Massachusetts (the "Site"). In 2009, GMR applied to the Town of Milton's Board of Appeals ("BOA") and Conservation Commission ("MCC") for approvals necessary to construct a proposed 140-foot cell phone tower on the Site. Finding that GMR failed to demonstrate its desired tower would "promote[ ] the safety, welfare, or aesthetic interests of the Town of Milton," the BOA concluded the proposal was "not in harmony with the [zoning] Bylaw" and denied GMR's application. The MCC also denied GMR's application, finding GMR had failed to provide it with any information about potential alternative sites. GMR appealed to federal district court. GMR argued that the BOA and MCC (collectively, "Milton") decisions violated various provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C.A. § 332(7)(B)(i)(II)). GMR argued that the two denials were not based on substantial evidence in 2014 Thomson Reuters 9