Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/2009

Home

() () '-~,_/ (J Zoning Bulletin October 10, 20091 Volume 31 No. 19 the Commission provided four reasons for its decision, set forth in para- graphs lettered A through D. Paragraph D concluded that Sprint's pro- posed tower would "dominate the immediate neighborhood so as to pre- vent development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable zoning district regulations." Paragraph D further explained that determination had been made based on consideration of: location; nature and height of the buildings; structures;. wall and fences on the site; and the nature and extent of landscaping and screening on the site. . Sprint then brought an action against the county, challenging the Com- mission's denial of its application. Among other claims, Sprint asserted that the Commission violated the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("TCA") because the Commission's denial did not satisfy the TCNs "in writing" requirement. The TCA required that a local board's denial of a permit to construct a telecommunications tower "be in writing and sup'" ported by substantial evidence contained in a written record." Sprint main- tained that the Commission's written denial failed to satisfy the TCNs "in writing" requirement because it did not contain "a sufficient explanatIon of the reasons for the permit denial." Saying there were rio genuine issues of material fact in dispute, Sprint asked the court to issue summary judgment in its favor on the law alone. The district court denied Sprint's motion. Instead, it granted summary judgment in favor of the county. In doing so, the court concluded that the Commission's decision satisfied the "in writing" requirement of the TCA. Sprint appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, agreed with the district court: the Commission's decision satisfied the TCA's "in writing" requirement. The court explained that a written denial would satisfy the TCA's "in writing" requirement only if it: "(1) [was] separate from the written re- cord; (2) describ[ed] the reasons for the denial; and (3) contain[ed] a suffi- cient explanation of the reasons for the denial to allow a reviewing court to evaluate the evidence in the record that supports those reasons." In other words, a local zoning board's denial "need only provideanexpla- nation that is sufficient to permit meaningful judicial review of whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the board's decision." Here, the court found that paragraph D of the Commission's decision provided "sufficient detail to satisfy the 'in writing' requirement under the TCA;" This was because, under paragraph D, the Commission clearly de-- nied the application based on the aesthetic impacts the proposed tower would have on the neighborhood. Paragraph D explained that "the Com- mission objected to the proposed tower because its size, location, and rela- tionship to surrounding screening and landscaping were such that the tower would 'dominate the immediate neighborhood so as to prevent development and use of neighboring property.' " @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 7 89