Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/02/2006

Home

[- \ Z.B. Special Issue - Page 3 and modern wireless communications equipment. Both.served the same pur- pose of allowing communication through the telephone. By allowing Voicestream to erect the structures, Voicestream would be able to provide wireless coverage for farmers and others residing in agricultural lands who were then without access. There was nothing in the record to indicate that the presence of the con- cealed antenna and equipment would undermine the land-use law's objectives of protecting and conserving natural resources and fostering intelligent, effec- tive, and orderly land allocation and development. see also: Curtis v. Board of Appeals, 978 P.2d 822 (1999). see also: Barnett v. State, 979 P.2d 1046 (1999). City fails to comply with certain provisions of Telecommunications Act Lower court gives city 60 days to reconsider permit denials Citation: Tennessee v. City of Chattanooga, 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 03-6608 The 6th U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. (' ......... TENNESSEE - Wrreless Income Properties LLC constructed, owned, and man- aged telecommunications towers across the United States. . Wireless filed several permit applications with the city of Chattanooga to build new towers. The permits were eventually denied. Wrreless sued, arguing the denials violated the Telecommunications Act, specifically the requirement that a denial of a permit request had to be "sup- ported by substantial evidence contained in a written record." The court gave . the city 60 days to reconsider Wireless' applications. Wrreless appealed, arguing the court's order violated its rights because the 60-day opportunity to reconsider the applications made Wrreless' claim under the Telecommunications Act irrelevant. The city had not made a [mal decision on whether to grant or deny the permits, so Wireless had not yet suffered a legal injury. DECISION: Reversed. The proper remedy was an order compelling the city to grant Wrreless' permit applications. It was c1earthe city denied the permit applications without a written denial and without providing a written record supporting its decision. If a municipal body denied a permit application, and the denial violated the Telecommunica- tions Act's "in writing" and "substantial evidence" requirements, a court had to order the city to grant the permit immediately. The district court gave the city 60 days to act upon the pennit applications. Clearly, this would subject the parties to further litigation, and the city would r~ :;;.: @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 49