Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/09/2014

Home

November 10, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 21 Zoning Bulletin The City appealed. On appeal, the City contended that its denial of T-Mobile's application satisfied the "in writing" requirement in § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) because the City's decision was reduced in writing in numerous forms, including the denial letter, the hearing minutes, and the hearing transcript. DECISION: Judgment of district court reversed and matter remanded. The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California, agreed with the City. Reiterating its holding in its recent decision in T-Mobile South, LLC v. City ofMilton, Ga., 58 Communications Reg. (P & F) 1590, 2013 WL 4750549 (11 th Cir. 2013) (which was summarized in the previ- ous issue of this Zoning Law Bulletin), the court adopted a plain reading of § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). The court stated that the "in -writing" requirement does not require a municipal decision be "in a separate writing" or in a "writing separate from the transcript of the hearing and the minutes of the meeting in which the hearing was held" or "in a single writing that itself contains all of the grounds and explanations for the decision." Rather, the court found that "to the extent that the decision must contain grounds or reasons or explanations, it is sufficient if those are contained in a different written document or documents that the applicant is given or has access to. ,, Here, the court found that the collective "writings" that T-Mobile had access to satisfied the writing requirement of § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). Those collective documents included: (1) the letter explicitly denying T-Mobile's request; (2) the minutes summarizing the April 12, 2010 hear- ing and recounting the reasons for the denial; and (3) a verbatim transcript of the April 12, 2010 hearing during which the City Council denied the request. See also: T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Milton, Ga., 58 Communica- tions Reg. (P & F) 1590, 2013 WL 4750549 (I1 th Cir. 2013). Case Note: In reaching its decision, the court rejected the "pragmatic" reading of the "in writing" requirement employed by the district court in the instant case and by, several of its sister circuits. Those courts have required that a written denial must be "separate from the written record" and "must contain a sufficient explanation of the reasons for the permit denial to allow a reviewing court to evaluate the ev- idence in the record supporting those reasons. See, e.g., Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc. v. Todd, 244 F.3d 51, 60, 31 Envtl. L. Rep. 20578 (1st Cir. 2001); New Par v. City of Saginaw, 301 F.3d 390, 395-96, 2002 FED App. 0276P (6th Cir. 2002); MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715, 721-23 (9th Cir. 2005). 4 © 2013 Thomson Reuters