Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin May 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 10 ument was placed in the County's Ordinances and Resolutions books, according to "customary procedure." Then, on September 2, 2014, at the Board's next regular monthly meeting, the Board approved the minutes of the August 5 meeting at which it had voted on Verizon's application. On September 5, 2014, Verizon sought a copy of the August 5 meet- ing minutes, which it found on the County website. The meeting minutes referred to the Document denying the Permit. Verizon had to submit an Open Records Request to obtain a copy of the Document, and received a copy of the Document on September 10. On September 24, 2014, Verizon filed a legal action in court, chal- lenging the denial of the Peiniit. Verizon argued that the Board's deci- sion had the effect of prohibiting its provision of personal wireless ser- vices, in violation of § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the "TCA"). The TCA provides certain federal substantive and procedural limita- tions on the local permitting process for the construction of cellular communications towers "in order to facilitate broader extension of wireless services to the American people." Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) provides that a "local government . . , shall act on any request for au- thorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service fa- cilities within a reasonable period of time . . . , taking into account the nature and scope of such request." (47 U.S.C.A. § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii).) It also requires that "[a]ny decision . . . to deny a request [for such au- thorization] shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence." (47 U.S.C.A. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii).) Here, Verizon argued that the Board's decision to deny the Permit was "not supported by substantial evidence, as required by § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii)." Verizon asked the court to issue an injunction requiring the Board to issue the Peiurit. The County responded to Verizon's action, arguing it was untimely and therefore time -barred under the TCA. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) of the TCA requires that "[a]ny person adversely affected by any final ac- tion by a State or local government . . . that is inconsistent with [§ 332(c)(7)(B)'s limitations] may, within 30 days after such action . . . , commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction." (47 U.S.C.A. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v).) The County argued that Verizon failed to file the lawsuit within the TCA's 30-day limitations period. Verizon contended that the 30-day limitations period began to run on August 7, 2014, when the County Clerk (the "Clerk") entered the Document evidencing the Board's August 5 vote in the County's Ordinances and Resolutions books "pursuant to custom." The District Court agreed with the County. It dismissed Verizon's action as time -barred. © 2018 Thomson Reuters 9