UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

AT CHATTANOOGA

VOGUE TOWER PARTNERS, LLC,

Plaintiff,
v.
HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, No. ___________________
the HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, and the
CHATTANOOGA-HAMILTON
COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Summary

Plaintiff Vogue Tower Partners, LLC (“Vogue”) files this action against Hamilton

County, Tennessee, the Hamilton County Board of Commissioners, and the Chattanooga-

Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission (collectively, the “County”) for

declaratory and injunctive relief.

This action arises out of the County’s unlawful denial of Vogue’s Application to

construct and operate a telecommunications tower on property located at 9031 Jennifer

Lane in Hamilton County. A primary purpose of the Application is to provide the

necessary facility that will remedy a significant cellular coverage gap in the surrounding

area. Verizon Wireless is one carrier that intends to utilize this proposed facility to improve

its coverage, and the facility will be able to accommodate other carriers that also desire to

improve their coverage in this area.

Case 1:18-cv-00214-JRG-SKL Document 1 Filed 09/14/18 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 1

 The County wrongfully denied Vogue’s Application even though the Application

satisfied all requirements of the relevant local regulation, Hamilton County Zoning

Regulation Article VI, Section 410. The County’s denial also violates federal law,

specifically 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, because it was

not supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record and effectively prohibits

wireless service in the vicinity of the proposed facility. The County’s denial also violates

Tennessee law because it was illegal, arbitrary, capricious, and not supported by material

evidence.

Vogue therefore requests that this Court issue such declaratory relief necessary to

clarify and adjudicate Vogue’s rights under federal and Tennessee law and that the Court

issue a permanent injunction requiring the County to grant Vogue’s Application and to issue

all necessary permits for the construction and operation of the telecommunications tower.

Vogue also requests that the Court resolve this matter on an expedited basis pursuant to 47

U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v).

Parties

1. Vogue is a Delaware corporation qualified to do business in Tennessee with

its principal place of business located in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Vogue, on behalf of itself

and its affiliates, constructs, owns, and manages wireless telecommunications facilities that

are used by telecommunications carriers to provide voice, data, internet, and other wireless

services to consumers in Tennessee and throughout the country.

2. Hamilton County is a governmental body existing under Tennessee law and

may be served with process through its County Mayor, Jim Coppinger, at his office at 208

Courthouse, 625 Georgia Avenue, Chattanooga, TN 37402.

Case 1:18-cv-00214-JRG-SKL Document 1 Filed 09/14/18 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 2

 3. The Hamilton County Board of Commissioners (the “Commission”) is a

governmental body existing under Tennessee law and may be served with process through

its Chairman, Sabrina Smedley, at her office at 401 Courthouse, 625 Georgia Avenue,

Chattanooga, TN 37402.

4. The Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission (the

“Regional Planning Commission”) is a governmental body existing under Tennessee law

and may be served with process through its Chair, Ethan Collier, at 1250 Market Street,

Chattanooga, TN 37402.

Jurisdiction And Venue

5. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action involves federal questions arising under the

Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the “Act”), specifically 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7).

6. This Court has authority to issue declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2201(a).

7. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1367.

8. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the

Defendants reside in this District; because a substantial part of property that is the subject of

this action is situated in this District; and because a substantial part of the events or

omissions giving rise to the action occurred in this District.

Case 1:18-cv-00214-JRG-SKL Document 1 Filed 09/14/18 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 3

 Facts

Federal Control And Supremacy Over Wireless Telecommunication Facility Siting

9. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the “Act”) governs federal, state, and local

governmental regulation of the siting of personal wireless service facilities such as the one at

issue in this case.

10. The Act further provides that any person adversely affected by a state or local

government’s act, or failure to act, that is inconsistent with 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7) may seek

review in federal court and that the court shall hear and decide the action on an expedited

basis.

The Wireless Communications Industry

11. Vogue, on behalf of itself and its affiliates, constructs, owns, and manages

wireless communications facilities in Tennessee and elsewhere in the country. Vogue leases

space on its facilities to national and regional wireless carriers who provide personal and

advanced wireless services, as well as other telecommunications services, as those terms are

defined under federal law, to end-user wireless consumers. In providing this valuable

service to wireless carriers, Vogue is facilitating the development and deployment of

advanced wireless and broadband connectivity consistent with the goals of the Act. Vogue

also provides space on its facilities free of charge to federal, state, and local first responders,

law enforcement, and public safety agencies.

12. Federal law establishes a national policy to “make available, so far as

possible, to all people of the United States, without discrimination . . . a rapid, efficient,

nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities

at reasonable charges, for the purpose of national defense, [and] for the purpose of

Case 1:18-cv-00214-JRG-SKL Document 1 Filed 09/14/18 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 4

promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication….”

47 U.S.C. §151.

13. To advance this national policy, Vogue constructs towers and other wireless

facilities that allow wireless carriers, such as Verizon Wireless, to create and maintain a

network of “cell sites,” each of which consists of antennas and related electronic

communications equipment designed to send and receive radio and other electronic signals.

14. To provide reliable service to a user, coverage from cell cites must overlap in a

grid pattern resembling a honeycomb. If Vogue is unable to construct a cell site within a

specific geographic area, the wireless carriers it serves, such as Verizon Wireless, will not be

able to provide reliable service to the consumers within that area.

15. To determine where a new wireless facility is required, radio frequency

(“RF”) engineers use various techniques, such as sophisticated computer programs and field

testing, to complete a propagation study, which shows where cell sites need to be located in

order to provide service. The propagation study also takes into account the topography of

the land, the coverage boundaries of neighboring cell sites, and other factors. For a wireless

network to perform as intended, cell sites must be located, constructed, and operated so that

reliable service can be achieved. If there is no functioning cell site within a given area, there

will be no reliable service for customers within that area, and customers who live or travel in

the area will experience an unacceptable level of dropped calls and call connection failures.

The Proposed Facility, Vogue’s Application, And The County’s Wrongful Denial

15. Based upon its research and knowledge, Vogue determined that the area in

and around 9031 Jennifer Lane in Hamilton County was an area experiencing inadequate

wireless coverage.

Case 1:18-cv-00214-JRG-SKL Document 1 Filed 09/14/18 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 5

 16. Verizon Wireless is one carrier that has determined it has a significant gap in

its ability to provide reliable service to its customers in the vicinity surrounding 9031

Jennifer Lane.

17. Verizon Wireless has deemed this coverage gap to be significant, and the gap

must be remedied for Verizon Wireless to provide effective service to the targeted area.

18. As explained below in more detail, Vogue intends to construct a facility at

9031 Jennifer Lane with capacity to allow multiple carriers to improve their coverage gaps

and to better serve their customers in this area. Verizon Wireless is one such carrier and has

committed to occupying space on this proposed facility.

19. Vogue and Verizon Wireless investigated properties within the surrounding

area, referred to as the “search ring,” that were suitable for a wireless telecommunications

facility. Among other requirements, a suitable site must be sufficiently close to the coverage

gap, must be of a sufficient height and topography to provide adequate coverage within the

gap, must comply with local zoning regulations, must be leasable, and must be buildable.

20. The investigation of potential sites in and around the search ring resulted in

several findings, some of which were:

a. there were no existing telecommunications facilities or other existing

structures within the search ring that were suitable to remedy the coverage

gap;

b. approximately 18-24 months ago, Vogue approached Christ United

Methodist Church on East Brainerd Road to gauge its interest in leasing some

of its property for a telecommunications facility. Vogue and the church had

several meetings and communications exploring this issue, but the church

Case 1:18-cv-00214-JRG-SKL Document 1 Filed 09/14/18 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 6

 ultimately decided not to lease property to Vogue. As Vogue later learned

from the engineering analysis performed by Verizon Wireless, this site would

not have been feasible to remedy the coverage gap at issue because the church

property’s elevation did not meet the necessary elevation requirements;

c. during the hearing process on Vogue’s Application, certain Commissioners

and concerned residents suggested to Vogue that it consider Shelter Church

on East Brainerd Road as an alternative site. Vogue investigated and

determined that Shelter Church was not a feasible alternative because the

church was outside the search ring, was not sufficiently close to the coverage

gap, and was at an insufficiently low elevation to provide effective coverage

within the gap; and

d. other nearby properties within residential areas were investigated and were

deemed insufficient because those sites would not allow for a facility to be

constructed in compliance with the County’s zoning regulations, primarily

the necessary setback requirements.

21. After evaluating properties within the search ring, Vogue and Verizon

Wireless concluded that 9031 Jennifer Lane was the only available property suitable for

construction of a telecommunications facility that would remedy the gap in coverage.

22. Based on the above, Vogue and Verizon Wireless have demonstrated that

they undertook a good-faith effort to identify available and feasible sites to construct a

facility that could be used to remedy the coverage gap.

23. The site at 9031 Jennifer Lane was the only site that met the numerous

requirements to be considered for siting the facility.

Case 1:18-cv-00214-JRG-SKL Document 1 Filed 09/14/18 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 7

 24. On May 21, 2018, Vogue submitted its application (the “Application”) to the

County for the required Special Use permit to construct the telecommunications facility.

25. As stated in the Application, Vogue proposed to build a 150-foot monopole

tower within a fenced compound at the designated location at 9031 Jennifer Lane,

Chattanooga, TN 37421 (the “Proposed Facility”). The Proposed Facility is to be contained

within an 11-acre wooded tract, and the site drawings and other plans show that Vogue

intends to minimize the amount of tree cutting and disturbance to the surrounding

vegetation so that when constructed, the Proposed Facility will be as least intrusive as

possible.

26. Among other information, Vogue’s Application included a detailed

Compliance Statement with supporting materials demonstrating that the Proposed Facility

complied with applicable law, including Hamilton County Zoning Regulation Article VI,

Section 410, the operative zoning regulation (the “Zoning Regulation”). The Application

also included propagation maps and other materials demonstrating the existence of a

coverage gap and information explaining that there are no feasible or available alternative

sites.

27. On July 9, 2018, the Regional Planning Commission conducted a meeting at

which it considered Vogue’s Application. A representative from Vogue and a Design

Engineer from Verizon Wireless attended and presented in support of Vogue’s Application.

28. At that time, Regional Planning Commission staff recommended approval of

Vogue’s Application. The staff’s written report recommending approval of the Application

states:

APPROVAL is recommended since the proposed communication tower

meets requirements for the special permit. The applicant has shown that

Case 1:18-cv-00214-JRG-SKL Document 1 Filed 09/14/18 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 8

 while service does exist in the area, coverage and quality of service as well as
use by emergency first responders may be improved by the addition of the
[Proposed Facility]. To ensure the cell tower is adequately buffered from the
adjacent residential properties, staff recommends the following condition:

1) Retain all existing vegetation on the site except for the access road and cell
tower lease area.

29. But the Regional Planning Commission voted against Vogue’s Application

despite that staff recommendation.

30. On August 8, 2018, Vogue’s Application was again considered during the

Hamilton County Board of Commissioners Agenda Preparation Session, at which time

Vogue’s counsel presented and explained that, among other things, the Proposed Facility

complied with the Zoning Regulation and other applicable law. No vote on Vogue’s

Application was taken.

31. Although not required by the Zoning Regulation or other applicable law,

Vogue voluntarily—and at substantial added expense to itself—agreed to accommodate

some concerns from nearby residents. At the August 8 Preparation Session, Vogue

announced that it was amending the site plan for the Proposed Facility by: (a) increasing

the set back of the monopole from one of the property lines so that the 150-foot monopole

would be constructed 190 feet from that property line rather than the originally planned 156

feet from that line; and (b) to construct an intentionally designed break point at the 75-foot

point of the 150-foot monopole, which would effectively reduce the monopole’s fall radius

by half.

32. On August 15, 2018, the Hamilton County Board of Commissioners

conducted its regular meeting and considered Vogue’s Application. A Vogue representative

and Vogue’s counsel again presented on behalf of Vogue.

Case 1:18-cv-00214-JRG-SKL Document 1 Filed 09/14/18 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 9

 33. During consideration of Vogue’s Application, a motion was made and

seconded to table Vogue’s Application for two weeks so that the Commission could receive

more evidence regarding the merits of Vogue’s Application, the stated intent of which was

to have further time to consider the issues of whether a gap in coverage existed and whether

there existed any feasible alternatives to the Proposed Facility.

34. A majority of the Commission voted “No” on the motion. The Commission

thereafter voted to reject Vogue’s Application.

35. By letter dated August 30, 2018, the Hamilton County Attorney provided a

letter to Vogue’s counsel purporting to explain the reasons why the County rejected Vogue’s

Application. See Exhibit 1.

36. That August 30 letter lists three reasons purportedly explaining why the

Commission rejected Vogue’s Application:

(1) The Commission was not satisfied that it heard sufficient evidence
from the Applicant that there were no other already established sites
where an antenna could be erected (“co-location”), to substantiate the
need for an additional tower in the subject area;

(2) The Commission was not satisfied that there presently exists any
“gap” in coverage that is experienced by cell phone users in the subject
area; and

(3) The Commission had presented to it a report that the presence of

cell towers in a community would have a negative impact on the value
of others’ properties in the subject area by decreasing same as much as
twenty-five percent (25%).

37. Nowhere in that letter does the County: describe in detail any underlying

support for those reasons, describe any alleged evidence purportedly supporting those

reasons, or explain why it chose not to credit any of the information Vogue submitted in

support of its Application.

Case 1:18-cv-00214-JRG-SKL Document 1 Filed 09/14/18 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 10

 38. There is no competent, admissible, relevant, or substantial evidence in the

record to support any of those reasons for denying Vogue’s Application.

39. In fact, substantial evidence in the written record directly refutes each of these

alleged reasons for the denial, as demonstrated in part by the recommendation of the

Regional Planning Commission’s staff that the Application be approved.

40. Vogue’s Application and other submitted materials, as well as live testimony

from representatives of Vogue and Verizon Wireless, showed that there exists a significant

coverage gap in the vicinity of the Proposed Facility and that the Proposed Facility would

remedy that gap. To Vogue’s knowledge, there is no competent evidence in the record that

refutes or otherwise disputes the existence of this coverage gap.

41. Vogue’s Application and other submitted materials, as well as live testimony

from representatives of Vogue and Verizon Wireless, also showed that a good-faith search

was conducted to determine whether any feasible, available alternative sites existed. The

conclusion of that search revealed that the Proposed Facility was the only feasible, available

site. Nor does it appear that the County ever exercised its right under Section (5) of the

Zoning Regulation to perform “field reconnaissance” to verify that conclusion. To Vogue’s

knowledge, there is no competent evidence in the record demonstrating the existence of any

feasible, available alternative to the Proposed Facility that might remedy the coverage gap

or that might otherwise do so through means less intrusive than the Proposed Facility.

42. The Commission’s denial of Vogue’s Application based on one unidentified

“report” about alleged reductions in values of residential properties surrounding

telecommunications facilities is also not a competent or relevant basis for denial. This basis

for denial is irrelevant under federal and state law as well as the County’s own Zoning

Case 1:18-cv-00214-JRG-SKL Document 1 Filed 09/14/18 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 11

 Regulation. And to the extent any such “report” was ever referenced throughout the

hearing process, it was never clearly identified and authenticated, nor was such report

properly presented to the Regional Planning Commission, the Commission, or to Vogue for

an opportunity to examine its contents, methodology, conclusions, or relevance. Whatever

“report” the Commission is referring to, it appears to be nothing more than hearsay and

speculation based on information with no relevance to the residential properties surrounding

the Proposed Facility. To Vogue’s knowledge, there is no competent evidence in the record

showing that construction of the Proposed Facility would result in any material reduction in

value to the residential properties actually surrounding the Proposed Facility.

43. Moreover, the County’s official position that it “was not satisfied” that there

was a significant coverage gap and that there were no feasible alternative sites is further

unjustified. Just before the Commission voted to reject Vogue’s Application, a majority of

the Commission voted “No” on an official motion to table the Application for two weeks,

the stated intent of which was to give the Commission further time to consider and receive

evidence on those exact two issues. In other words, the Commission formally declined to

grant itself more time to receive and review additional evidence regarding Vogue’s

Application, but they rejected the Application anyway by claiming that there wasn’t enough

supporting information to grant it.

Case 1:18-cv-00214-JRG-SKL Document 1 Filed 09/14/18 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 12

 Count 1 – Failure To Provide Reasons For Denial In Writing

47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii)

44. Vogue incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

45. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii), “[a]ny decision by a State or local

government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify

personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence

contained in a written record.”

46. The United States Supreme Court has held that to comply with Section

332(c)(7)(B)(iii), the County must state its reasons for denying the request “with sufficient

clarity” to enable effective judicial review and must issue that writing “essentially

contemporaneously” with the denial. T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, 135 S. Ct. 808,

818 (2015).

47. The County rejected Vogue’s Application on August 15, 2018, but at that

time did not provide a writing with reasons allegedly supporting that denial.

48. By written letter dated August 30, 2018, the County first purported to explain

the reasons for denying Vogue’s Resolution. See Exhibit 1.

49. The County’s August 30 letter was not provided to Vogue at essentially the

same time as its August 15 denial.

50. The purported reasons for the denial—instead of being sufficiently clear to

enable effective review—are conclusory, vague, contradictory, unsupported by any

competent evidence (much less substantial evidence), and otherwise fail the writing

requirement mandated by Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii).

Case 1:18-cv-00214-JRG-SKL Document 1 Filed 09/14/18 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 13

 51. Consequently, the County’s denial violates, and should be preempted by,

Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) and should be set aside and enjoined by the Court. The Court

should also issue an injunction requiring the County to approve Vogue’s Application.

Count 2 – Failure To Support Denial With Substantial Evidence

47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii)

52. Vogue incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

53. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii), “[a]ny decision by a State or local

government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify

personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence

contained in a written record.”

54. Vogue’s Application satisfied all applicable legal requirements, including

those in the County’s Zoning Regulation, to install the proposed telecommunications

facility.

55. The Regional Planning Commission’s staff recommended approval of

Vogue’s Application.

56. At the August 8 and August 15, 2018 hearings before the Commission, Vogue

presented evidence demonstrating that the Proposed Facility would remedy a substantial

gap in Verizon’s coverage; that there were no feasible site alternatives; and that the

Proposed Facility satisfied all requirements of the County’s Zoning Regulation.

57. The Commission disregarded the evidence in the record supporting Vogue’s

Application as well as the recommendation from the staff of the Regional Planning

Commission that the Application be approved.

58. The Commission’s denial was not supported by substantial evidence.

Case 1:18-cv-00214-JRG-SKL Document 1 Filed 09/14/18 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 14

 59. Consequently, the Commission’s denial violates, and should be preempted

by, Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) and should be set aside and enjoined by the Court. The Court

should also issue an injunction requiring the County and Commission to approve Vogue’s

Application.

Count 3 – Discrimination And Prohibition Of

The Provision Of Personal Wireless Services

47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)

60. Vogue incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

61. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i) provides that state and local regulation of personal

wireless service facilities:

(I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally

equivalent services; and

(II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of

personal wireless services.

62. As shown in Vogue’s Application, Verizon Wireless currently suffers a

significant gap in coverage in the vicinity of the proposed facility.

63. Vogue has also shown that a good-faith effort was made to explore and to

review alternatives other than the Proposed Facility that might remedy the coverage gap.

But despite those efforts, the Proposed Facility is the only suitable site (as well as the least

intrusive method) to remedy the significant coverage gap in this area.

64. The County’s denial of Vogue’s Application has the effect of prohibiting the

provision of personal wireless services within the affected area.

65. The County’s denial of Vogue’s Application constitutes unreasonable

discrimination against Vogue considering that the County has, upon information and belief,

Case 1:18-cv-00214-JRG-SKL Document 1 Filed 09/14/18 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 15

 granted other applications by other similarly situated applicants that provide services

functionally equivalent to those of Vogue.

66. Consequently, the County’s denial of Vogue’s Application violates, and is

preempted by, Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i) and should be set aside and enjoined on that basis.

The Court should also issue an injunction requiring the County to approve Vogue’s’

Application.

Count 4 – Exclusion Of Location

Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-24-301 et seq.

67. Vogue incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

68. Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-24-301 states that “no municipal, county or regional

planning commission or any municipal or county legislative body shall, by ordinance or

otherwise, exclude the location or relocation of any facility used to provide telephone or

telegraph services to the public.”

69. Vogue complied with all of the requirements of the Zoning Regulation and

other applicable law.

70. The County’s denial of Vogue’s Application constitutes an exclusion of the

location of a proposed telecommunications tower that would be used to provide telephone

services to the public, and the wrongful denial otherwise constitutes action in excess of the

County’s jurisdiction as granted to it by Tennessee law.

71. Consequently, the County’s denial of Vogue’s Application violates Tenn.

Code Ann. § 13-24-301 et seq. and should be set aside and enjoined on that basis. The Court

should also issue an injunction requiring the County to approve Vogue’s Application.

Case 1:18-cv-00214-JRG-SKL Document 1 Filed 09/14/18 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 16

 Count 5 – Arbitrary, Capricious, and Illegal Action

72. Vogue incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

73. The Zoning Regulation provides the requirements for approving an

application to construct a telecommunications facility within Hamilton County.

74. Vogue submitted its Application to construct the Proposed Facility, and the

Application was supported by evidence demonstrating that all of the requirements of the

Zoning Regulation and other applicable law were satisfied.

75. Despite this showing, the Commission rejected Vogue’s Application.

76. The County’s denial of Vogue’s Application was arbitrary and capricious as

evidenced by the following non-exclusive examples:

a. The Commission failed to base its denial on the Zoning Regulation or on any

reasonable legal basis;

b. There was no material, competent evidence that rebutted the evidence in

Vogue’s Application or that otherwise supported the Commission’s denial;

and

c. The Commission formally declined to grant itself more time to receive and

review additional evidence regarding Vogue’s Application, but they rejected

the Application anyway by claiming that there wasn’t enough supporting

information to grant it.

77. The Commission failed to follow its own Zoning Regulation and denied

Vogue’s Application without any reasonable basis or justification. As such, the

Commission’s denial is arbitrary, capricious, illegal and is therefore null and void.

Case 1:18-cv-00214-JRG-SKL Document 1 Filed 09/14/18 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 17

 Count 6 – No Material Evidence

78. Vogue incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

79. The County’s denial of Vogue’s Application was not supported by material or

substantial evidence.

80. Vogue’s Application complied with all requirements of the Zoning

Regulation.

81. No material or substantial evidence was submitted showing that Vogue had

not met the requirements of the Zoning Regulation, nor was there any material or

substantial evidence in the record that would support the County’s denial of Vogue’s

Application.

82. Consequently, the County’s denial was illegal, arbitrary, and capricious and is

thus null and void.

WHEREFORE, Vogue respectfully requests that the Court grant the following relief:

1. That this action be resolved on an expedited basis pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §

332(c)(7)(B)(v);

2. That the County compile and submit a copy of all applications, submissions,

evidence, statements, transcripts, minutes, and other materials comprising the entire record

relating to Vogue’s Application, so that this Court and Vogue may conduct an effective

review of the County’s denial of the Application;

3. That the Court issue a declaratory judgment that the County wrongfully

denied Vogue’s Application because the County:

Case 1:18-cv-00214-JRG-SKL Document 1 Filed 09/14/18 Page 18 of 20 PageID #: 18

 a. violated Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) by failing to issue a contemporaneous and

sufficiently clear writing setting forth the reasons for its denial;

b. violated Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) because the denial was not supported by

substantial evidence contained in a written record;

c. violated Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I) because the denial constitutes unreasonable

discrimination against Vogue; and

d. violated Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) because the denial effectively prohibits the

provision of personal wireless services.

4. That the Court enter a judgment that the County’s denial violated Section

332(c)(7) and is thus null and void;

5. That the Court issue a declaratory judgment that the County wrongfully

denied Vogue’s Application because that denial:

a. violated Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-24-301;

b. was arbitrary, capricious, and illegal; and

c. was not supported by material or substantial evidence.

6. That the Court enter a judgment that the County’s denial violated Tennessee

law and is thus null and void;

7. That the Court issue a permanent injunction and enter an order requiring the

County to grant Vogue’s Application and grant such further permission as may be necessary

to allow construction of the Proposed Facility and to otherwise cease any further attempt to

prevent construction of the Proposed Facility;

8. That the Court grant Vogue its reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Tenn.

Code Ann. § 29-37-101, et seq. and other applicable law;

Case 1:18-cv-00214-JRG-SKL Document 1 Filed 09/14/18 Page 19 of 20 PageID #: 19

 9. That the Court tax all costs against the County; and

10. That the Court grant Vogue such other further relief as is just and proper.

Respectfully submitted this 14th day of September, 2018.

CHAMBLISS, BAHNER & STOPHEL, P.C.

By: /s/ Harold L. North

Harold L. North, BPR No. 007022
Bradley M. Davis, BPR No. 023988
Liberty Tower, Suite 1700
605 Chestnut Street
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37450
Telephone: (423) 756-3000
Facsimile: (423) 508-1291
hnorth@chamblisslaw.com
bdavis@chamblisslaw.com

Counsel for Vogue Tower Partners, LLC

Case 1:18-cv-00214-JRG-SKL Document 1 Filed 09/14/18 Page 20 of 20 PageID #: 20

Case 1:18-cv-00214-JRG-SKL Document 1-1 Filed 09/14/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 21
Case 1:18-cv-00214-JRG-SKL Document 1-1 Filed 09/14/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 22
Case 1:18-cv-00214-JRG-SKL Document 1-1 Filed 09/14/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 23