Circuit Court rules on first impression issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals resolved an issue of first impression today: what is needed to be deemed "adequate writing" under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

The issue arose in Dan Helcher, et al. v. Dearborn County, Ind. Board of Zoning Appeals, No. 07-3949, in which Cincinnati Bell Wireless appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Dearborn County Board of Zoning Appeals in its suit filed after the BZA refused to grant a conditional use permit to build a cell phone tower on the Helchers' land, which was zoned agricultural.

Bell believed the BZA violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996, claiming the BZA's decision wasn't based on substantial evidence contained in a written record; the approved minutes didn't constitute a sufficient written decision; the BZA's decision unreasonably discriminated against Bell; and the decision had the effect of denying the provision of wireless communications services. Bell prepared reports, photos and other studies to convince the BZA to allow it to build the cell phone tower on the Helchers' land. A number of landowners opposed the tower because of its visual impact and fear it would decrease property values.

The BZA voted in March 2006 to deny Bell's application for a special-use permit. Several months after the meeting, the BZA approved its revised minutes from the March meeting.

First, the Circuit Court had to decide whether the BZA's decision complied with the act's requirement that the decision must be "in writing," an issue not yet ruled on by the 7th Circuit. The appellate judges joined the decisions of the 1st, 6th, and 9th circuits, which ruled the "in writing" requirement is met so long as the written decision contains a sufficient explanation of the reasons for the permit denial to allow a reviewing court to evaluate the evidence in the record supporting those reasons, wrote Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner.

After examining the BZA's minutes, the Circuit Court found they provided an adequate basis for judicial review and met the "in writing" requirement. The Circuit judges also affirmed the BZA's finding that Bell's application didn't satisfy Article 3, Sections 315(b) and (d), and Article 15, Section 1514(5) of the county's zoning ordinance. The photographic representations of the tower as viewed from the Helchers' neighbors' property, along with the objections of many residents who purchased land and built homes in this area specifically because of the natural views, provided the BZA with substantial evidence to reject the permit as nonconforming with Section 315(b), wrote the judge.

Bell also didn't investigate placing the tower on property zoned for manufacturing, highway interchange, general business, or restricted business. The company only determined it couldn't perform co-location with existing towers. In addition, Bell's arguments that the BZA's rejection of its application effectively prohibits the company from providing wireless communication services and the denial unreasonably discriminates between wireless providers have no merit, the Circuit Court concluded. It affirmed summary judgment for the BZA.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  2. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  3. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  4. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  5. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.