Pub Date : 2014-07-29DOI: 10.1080/15480755.2014.949101
Matthew K. Schettenhelm
Abstract An application to place a 108‐foot‐tall cell tower in a residential neighborhood. An outpouring of opposition. A public hearing. A denial—by unanimous vote on an oral motion. And a letter to the applicant stating that the application had been denied and referring to the hearing’s minutes, which reflect reasons why the board may have denied the application. These are the key facts of T‐Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, No. 13‐ 975, a case that the U.S. Supreme Court will consider this fall. The case’s central legal question is also straightforward. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that “ [a]ny decision . . . to deny a request . . . shall be in writing. ” The Court will decide whether it is sufficient for a city to state in writing that it has denied the application and to refer to the record, or whether the written denial must also describe the reasons for the city’s decision. The case could have significant impacts on how local zoning boards function and on the form their decisions must take to survive legal challenge. It also could lead to effects on local governments well beyond the narrow issue presented here.
{"title":"Is a Local Government’s Decision ‘In Writing?’:The U.S. Supreme Court to Rule","authors":"Matthew K. Schettenhelm","doi":"10.1080/15480755.2014.949101","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15480755.2014.949101","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract An application to place a 108‐foot‐tall cell tower in a residential neighborhood. An outpouring of opposition. A public hearing. A denial—by unanimous vote on an oral motion. And a letter to the applicant stating that the application had been denied and referring to the hearing’s minutes, which reflect reasons why the board may have denied the application. These are the key facts of T‐Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, No. 13‐ 975, a case that the U.S. Supreme Court will consider this fall. The case’s central legal question is also straightforward. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that “ [a]ny decision . . . to deny a request . . . shall be in writing. ” The Court will decide whether it is sufficient for a city to state in writing that it has denied the application and to refer to the record, or whether the written denial must also describe the reasons for the city’s decision. The case could have significant impacts on how local zoning boards function and on the form their decisions must take to survive legal challenge. It also could lead to effects on local governments well beyond the narrow issue presented here.","PeriodicalId":41184,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Property Planning and Environmental Law","volume":"43 1","pages":"4 - 7"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2014-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80789689","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-07-29DOI: 10.1080/15480755.2014.949106
M. L. Higgs
Abstract We are all familiar with the 120‐ to 200‐foot towers and monopoles with their triangular antenna arrays that have come to dot our landscape over the last 20 years. While these “macro” cell sites are not going away any time in the foreseeable future, new small cell deployments, known as DAS, or Distributed Antenna Systems, are increasingly being used by carriers and infrastructure providers to fill in coverage gaps and increase system capacity in congested areas. DAS equipment requires less power and can be located closer in proximity to its end users, often utilizing small form-factor antennas that can easily blend into their surroundings.
{"title":"Regulating DAS Developments: Making Small Cells Work in a Macro World","authors":"M. L. Higgs","doi":"10.1080/15480755.2014.949106","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15480755.2014.949106","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We are all familiar with the 120‐ to 200‐foot towers and monopoles with their triangular antenna arrays that have come to dot our landscape over the last 20 years. While these “macro” cell sites are not going away any time in the foreseeable future, new small cell deployments, known as DAS, or Distributed Antenna Systems, are increasingly being used by carriers and infrastructure providers to fill in coverage gaps and increase system capacity in congested areas. DAS equipment requires less power and can be located closer in proximity to its end users, often utilizing small form-factor antennas that can easily blend into their surroundings.","PeriodicalId":41184,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Property Planning and Environmental Law","volume":"8 1","pages":"10 - 9"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2014-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75234060","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-07-29DOI: 10.1080/15480755.2014.949102
Matthew K. Schettenhelm
Abstract You did it. You successfully worked with a wireless service provider to find the ideal spot for its new wireless tower. The tower is positioned perfectly—in the heart of downtown, yet safe, hidden, completely undisruptive. The provider is happy. The community is content. It’s a win‐win. Fast forward a month. The provider is back with a new idea: To support the latest technology and to enhance its revenues, it will add not one, but four 20‐foot extensions for new antennas. The extensions would make the otherwise hidden facility visible. They would reach across and over the sidewalk and street, presenting safety risks. And the provider would also add four new equipment cabinets and an equipment shelter. Your answer is easy: Absolutely not. We can find a better solution. But this time the provider is not asking, it’s demanding. It says that because it is not proposing an initial facility but a colocation, you must approve its requests. Whether the provider is correct may turn on how the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) resolves a pending rule making. This article describes the proceeding, key issues it raises, and what the proceeding may mean to you and your community. As a planner, you can influence the proceeding by meeting with the FCC to discuss the proposed rules and by responding to industry claims that local requirements are delaying deployment.
{"title":"The Complications of Colocation: What the Federal Communication’s Rule Making May Mean for Your Community","authors":"Matthew K. Schettenhelm","doi":"10.1080/15480755.2014.949102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15480755.2014.949102","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract You did it. You successfully worked with a wireless service provider to find the ideal spot for its new wireless tower. The tower is positioned perfectly—in the heart of downtown, yet safe, hidden, completely undisruptive. The provider is happy. The community is content. It’s a win‐win. Fast forward a month. The provider is back with a new idea: To support the latest technology and to enhance its revenues, it will add not one, but four 20‐foot extensions for new antennas. The extensions would make the otherwise hidden facility visible. They would reach across and over the sidewalk and street, presenting safety risks. And the provider would also add four new equipment cabinets and an equipment shelter. Your answer is easy: Absolutely not. We can find a better solution. But this time the provider is not asking, it’s demanding. It says that because it is not proposing an initial facility but a colocation, you must approve its requests. Whether the provider is correct may turn on how the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) resolves a pending rule making. This article describes the proceeding, key issues it raises, and what the proceeding may mean to you and your community. As a planner, you can influence the proceeding by meeting with the FCC to discuss the proposed rules and by responding to industry claims that local requirements are delaying deployment.","PeriodicalId":41184,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Property Planning and Environmental Law","volume":"7 1","pages":"11 - 8"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2014-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85389335","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-07-20DOI: 10.1080/15480755.2014.937146
Abstract “Judicial Decisions” are abstracts of recent federal and state court decisions addressing issues of importance to the land use lawyer and planner, such as zoning, inverse condemnation, growth management, signs and billboards, vested rights, and many more.
{"title":"Judicial Decisions","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/15480755.2014.937146","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15480755.2014.937146","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract “Judicial Decisions” are abstracts of recent federal and state court decisions addressing issues of importance to the land use lawyer and planner, such as zoning, inverse condemnation, growth management, signs and billboards, vested rights, and many more.","PeriodicalId":41184,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Property Planning and Environmental Law","volume":"18 1","pages":"11 - 25"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2014-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75611627","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-07-20DOI: 10.1080/15480755.2014.937148
{"title":"Index & List of Reporters","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/15480755.2014.937148","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15480755.2014.937148","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41184,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Property Planning and Environmental Law","volume":"64 1","pages":"26 - 28"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2014-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75743411","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-07-20DOI: 10.1080/15480755.2014.937145
David S. Silverman
Abstract Communities across the United States are experiencing an unprecedented increase in entrepreneurial activity. The concept of “pop‐up” events and activities is creating a dynamic new environment that allows small business owners, and even established businesses, to test out new business ideas without the risk of being tied to long-term commercial leases or even traditional brick‐and‐mortar locations.
{"title":"The Temporary Use and Economic Development","authors":"David S. Silverman","doi":"10.1080/15480755.2014.937145","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15480755.2014.937145","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Communities across the United States are experiencing an unprecedented increase in entrepreneurial activity. The concept of “pop‐up” events and activities is creating a dynamic new environment that allows small business owners, and even established businesses, to test out new business ideas without the risk of being tied to long-term commercial leases or even traditional brick‐and‐mortar locations.","PeriodicalId":41184,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Property Planning and Environmental Law","volume":"33 1","pages":"10 - 8"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2014-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89689880","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-06-20DOI: 10.1080/15480755.2014.937143
Julie A. Tappendorf
Abstract Last year, a federal district court ruled that a municipality could not require a faith-based organization to apply for and obtain a temporary use permit in order to operate its mobile pregnancy counseling services. At issue in The Life Center, Inc. v. City of Elgin was the constitutionality of the city's temporary use regulations that restricted the number of days a particular temporary usecould operate in a year. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found the city's temporary use regulations, as well as its zoning definitions of “land use” and “structure,” to be unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because the regulations could prevent people from exercising protected First Amendment rights. Although the court's ruling applied only to the City of Elgin's zoning code, it should cause concern among municipalities across the country who would likely find similar temporary use regulations and zoning definitions in their own codes.
去年，一家联邦地区法院裁定，市政当局不得要求宗教组织申请并获得临时使用许可证，以开展其流动怀孕咨询服务。在The Life Center, Inc.诉埃尔金市(City of Elgin)一案中，争论的焦点是该市的临时使用规定是否符合宪法，该规定限制了某一特定临时使用场所在一年内可以运营的天数。美国伊利诺斯州北区地方法院认为，该市的临时使用规定，以及其对“土地使用”和“结构”的分区定义，含糊不清，过于宽泛，违反了宪法，因为这些规定可能会阻止人们行使受第一修正案保护的权利。虽然法院的裁决只适用于埃尔金市的分区法规，但它应该引起全国各地市政当局的关注，他们可能会在自己的法规中找到类似的临时使用规定和分区定义。
{"title":"Common Zoning Definitions Found Unconstitutional in TLC v. Elgin","authors":"Julie A. Tappendorf","doi":"10.1080/15480755.2014.937143","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15480755.2014.937143","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Last year, a federal district court ruled that a municipality could not require a faith-based organization to apply for and obtain a temporary use permit in order to operate its mobile pregnancy counseling services. At issue in The Life Center, Inc. v. City of Elgin was the constitutionality of the city's temporary use regulations that restricted the number of days a particular temporary usecould operate in a year. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found the city's temporary use regulations, as well as its zoning definitions of “land use” and “structure,” to be unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because the regulations could prevent people from exercising protected First Amendment rights. Although the court's ruling applied only to the City of Elgin's zoning code, it should cause concern among municipalities across the country who would likely find similar temporary use regulations and zoning definitions in their own codes.","PeriodicalId":41184,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Property Planning and Environmental Law","volume":"69 1","pages":"4 - 8"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2014-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90407237","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-06-17DOI: 10.1080/15480755.2014.924798
Abstract “Judicial Decisions” are abstracts of recent federal and state court decisions addressing issues of importance to the land use lawyer and planner, such as zoning, inverse condemnation, growth management, signs and billboards, vested rights, and many more.
{"title":"Judicial Decisions","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/15480755.2014.924798","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15480755.2014.924798","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract “Judicial Decisions” are abstracts of recent federal and state court decisions addressing issues of importance to the land use lawyer and planner, such as zoning, inverse condemnation, growth management, signs and billboards, vested rights, and many more.","PeriodicalId":41184,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Property Planning and Environmental Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"12 - 25"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2014-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75699807","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：