Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/09/2014

Home

October 25, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 20 Zoning Bulletin two of the penult applications were denied and that one was approved subject to listed conditions; and the detailed minutes of the City Council hearings, recounting all of the reasons for the action on each applica- tion along with the relevant discussion. See also: AT & T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City Council of City of Vir- ginia Beach, 155 F.3d 423 (4th Cir. 1998) (rejected by, PrimeCo Personal Communications, L.P. v. Village of Fox Lake, 26 F. Supp. 2d 1052 (N.D. Ill. 1998)) (similarly holding that a writing requirement was satisfied by a two -page summary of the minutes of a city council hearing along with a letter denying the application). But compare: Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc. v. Todd, 244 F.3d 51, 31 Envtl. L. Rep. 20578 (1st Cir. 2001) (requiring "a written denial separate from the written record" and one containing sufficient explanation of the reasons to allow "meaningful judicial review," but finding that a zoning board's "short written decision" was enough even though it contained "little explanation and few facts"); New Par v. City of Saginaw, 301 F.3d 390, 2002 FED App. 0276P (6th Cir. 2002) (requiring that the written decision be separate from the record, de- scribe the reasons for the denial, and contain a sufficient explanation to allow a court to evaluate it against the evidence in the record); Omnip- oint Holdings, Inc. v. City of Southfield, 355 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2004) (distinguishing the Todd decision, which involved a zoning board deci- sion, and holding that a formal city council resolution stating the reasons for denial of the application satisfied the writing requirement); MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2005) (requiring a written denial separate from the written record with sufficient explanation to allow for judicial review, and hold- ing that a five -page written decision separate from the record, which summarized the facts, recounted the proceedings, articulated the reasons, and explained the evidentiary basis for the denial, was suf- ficient); Helcher v. Dearborn County, 595 F.3d 710, 64 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 661 (7th Cir. 2010) (requiring "a sufficient explanation of the reasons for the peiniit denial to allow a reviewing court to evaluate the evi- dence in the record supporting those reasons," without mentioning whether the written explanation had to be separate from the record, but holding that the 17-page minutes of a zoning board of appeals' meeting met that requirement). 8 © 2013 Thomson Reuters