Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/02/2006

Home

( ZB. Special Issue - Page 5 tions from local residents reporting that the district already enjoyed excellent wireless coverage. Finally, the record contained a site map showing the loca- tions of SprintPCS facilities in the district, with one antenna installation just 0.2 miles away from the proposed site. - Taken together, the record satisfied the substantial evidence provision of the Telecommunications Act. see also: New Par v.City of Saginaw, 301 F.3d 390 (2002). see also: S. W Bell Mobile Systems Inc. v. Todd, 244 F.3d 51 (2001). . Informal process provides no written pennit 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 The 6th U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. "". f ;; \~" TENNESSEE _ WIreless Income Properties LLC sought city approval for the construction of some new monopole communications towers. However, after nine months, it still had not received what it considered a definitive 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 writing. At some point in the process, Mayo telephoned Wireless and informed Wireless its applications did not comply with the ordinance. Mayo also in- formed Wireless of the changes that would need to be made to the applica- tions in order for permits to be granted and indicated no further action would be taken unless those changes were made. No further action was taken for nine months. @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. I I I ./ I f I i I l ~ i I r ! 51