Laserfiche WebLink
<br />November 25, 2009 I Volume 3 I No. 22 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br />C) USCOC appealed. . <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> <br />I . ~'J <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />, <br />I <br />\ <br />i u <br /> <br />(j <br /> <br />The United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, concluded that <br />the B9ard's "final action" under the TCA was its issuance of a written <br />decision on USCOC's variance application. Thus, the Board did not <br />violate the TCA's "in writing" requirement by issuing its written deci- <br />sion more than thirty days after voting to deny the variances. <br />The court explained that, given the plain language and purpose of <br />the TCA, it was clear that a "fi,nal action" under the TCA (~ 332(c) <br />(7)(B)(v)) occurred "when a state or local government issues a writ- <br />ten decision denying an application to construct a wireless service fa- <br />cility." Under the plain language of the TCA,"[p]utting die decision <br />in writing is the last action" that the TCA requires local governments <br />to take. Therefore, the court concluded, "the issuance of the written <br />decision is logically the; 'final action.'" The purpose of the TCA's "in <br />writing" requirement is to' "enable effective judicial review of local <br />government action." Since courts primarily scrutinize the written de- <br />cision of a local government, the court found that purpose (i.e., "the <br />process of judicial review"), "is best served by delaying ripening of a <br />TCA claim until the local authority has issued its written decision." <br /> <br />See also: Preferred Sites, LLC v. Troup County, 296 R3d 1210 (11th <br />Cir. 2002). <br /> <br />See alsb: Omnipoint Holdings, Inc. v. City of Southfield, 355 R3d <br />601 (6th Cir. 2004). <br /> <br />Case Note: USCOC also alleged that the Board violated the TCA's <br />"written record requirement" because it failed to provide a tran- <br />script of the proceedings on its variance application. The court <br />disagreed. It found the TCA required only a "written record"; it <br />did not specify record keeping requirements. Nor did it incorporate <br />more specific record keeping duties imposed by local law. <br /> <br />Case Note: USCOC had also argued that the city's denial of its <br />SUP and its variances were not supported by substantial eVI- <br />dence, as required by the TCA. The court disagreed. <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters 9 <br /> <br />49 <br />