Agenda - Council - 05/26/2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Zoning Bulletin February 25, 2015 I Volume 9 I Issue 4 over all federal courts and over state court cases involving issues of federal law. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (01/14/15)—This case ad- dressed the issues of whether, and in what form, localities must provide reasons when they deny telecommunication companies' applications to construct cell phone towers. More specifically, it addressed: (1) whether a locality must provide reasons when it denies a siting application; and (2) whether a locality's reasons for denying a siting application must appear in the same writing that conveys the locality's denial. The Background/Facts: In February 2010, T-Mobile South, LLC ("T- Mobile") applied to build a new, 108-foot-tall cell phone tower on 2.8 acres of vacant residential property in the city of Roswell, Georgia (the "City"). Ultimately, the City's Planning and Zoning Division found that T-Mobile's ap- plication met all of the requirements set out in the City's ordinances. After a public hearing, the City Council ultimately denied T-Mobile's application. Two days later, the City's Planning and Zoning Division informed T-Mobile of the denial via a letter. The letter did not provide reasons for the denial, but stated that minutes from the meeting (at which City Council members voiced their reasons) would be made available. The detailed minutes were published 26 days later. Three days after the detailed minutes were published —and now 29 days after the City Council denied T-Mobile's application and one day before T-Mobile's appeal period expired—T-Mobile filed suit in Federal District Court. T-Mobile alleged that the City Council's denial was not supported by substantial evidence in the record, and would effectively prohibit provision of wireless service in violation of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the "Act"). The Act provides, in relevant part, that "[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." (110 Stat. 151, 47 U.S.C.A. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii).) Both the City and T-Mobile moved for summary judgment; they asked the district court to find that there were no material issues of fact in dispute and to decide the matter in their favor on the law alone. The district court agreed with T-Mobile and issued summary judgment in its favor. It concluded that the City, by failing to issue a written decision stating its reasons for denying the applica- tion, had violated the Act. The City appealed. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the district court. It found that the City had met the Act's requirements because T-Mobile had received a denial letter and also possessed a transcript of the pub- lic hearing at which the City Council voted to deny the application. (T-Mobile had arranged privately to have the public hearing transcribed and thus pos- sessed that transcript since the date of the public hearing.) T-Mobile again appealed. It argued that the City was required by the Act to provide reasons for its denial in the writing conveying the denial itself. The City countered that "a reason -giving obligation would deprive it of local zoning authority." DECISION: Judgment of Eleventh Circuit reversed and matter remanded. ©2015 Thomson Reuters