Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/07/2005

Home

/~-.. Z.B. May 25, 2005--Page 3 shielded from political influence. Lastly, the zoning board proceedings had substantial legal safeguards, including the right to appeal to correct any erroneous decisions. Despite the board's argument, the court sent the case back to the lower court because it failed to address whether the zoning officials were actually performing quasi~judicial functions. If the court found some of the alleged conduct fell outside this function, then the case would have to proceed to trial. Therefore, it was necessary to rehear the case to make this determination. see also: Ziccardi v. City of Philadelphia, 288 F. 3d'57 (2002). see also: Associates in Obstetrics & Gynecology v. Upper Merion Township, 27~ F. Supp.2d 633 (2003). Telecommunications Act -- Informal process provides no written permit denial . Wireless provider receives phone call, but no other action is taken Citation: Wireless Income Properties LLC v. City of Chattanooga, 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 03-6608 (2005) The 6th U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. TENNESSEE (04/07/05) -- Wireless Income Properties LLC sought city ap- proval for the construction of some new monopole communications towers. However, after nine months, it still had not received what it considered a del'mi- tire answer from the city. Mayo was the city employee primarily responsible for processing such applications. When the city received an application that Mayo believed did not comply with the city's regulations, his practice was to telephone the applicant and inform the applicant of the defects in the application. Then, Mayo would hold the application until the applicant submitted the necessary amendments to bring the application into compliance with city regulations. If the applicant did not amend his or her application within a several-year period, Mayo would discard the faulty application. A formal denial of the permit application would never occur. Wireless sued, claiming the city's procedure for issuing a permit violated the Telecommunications Act. DECISION: Judgment in favor of Wireless. The city's procedures violated the Telecommunications Act. The Telecommunications Act required state or local governments to act on a permit application within a reasonable time and to provide a decision in writ- ing. A~ some point in the process, Mayo telephoned Wireless and informed Wireless its applications did not .comply with the ordinance. Mayo also in- 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048.