Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/01/2007

Home

October 15, 20071 Volume 11 No. 20 '---Ol, ment from the board explaining the denial did not satisfy the requirement ! i that the decision be "in writing." The county asked the court to find in its favor without a trial, effective- ly affirming its decision to deny the permit. Verizon also asked the court to find in its favor without a trial and reverse the decision. DECISION: Judgment, in part, in favor of Verizon. The court noted that the interpretation of the Act's written require- ments varied from circuit to circuit. For example, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had found previously that simply stamping the word "denied" on a zoning permit application was sufficient to meet the re- quirement, while case law from other circuits had held that the "in writ- ing" provision was satisfied only if the decision was "separate from the written record, describe[d]the reasons for the denial, and contain[ed] a sufficient explanation of the reasons for denial to allow a reviewing court to evaluate the evidence in the record that support[ed] those reasons." The court here aligned itself with the position held by the latter cir- cuits, finding that a written decision conforming.to those holdings would "enhance the Court's ability to provide the parties meaningful judicial re- view of the Board's decision in light of the evidence in the record." This, the court noted, was necessary to issue a definitive ruling as to whether the decision in question met the other requirement in the Act-that it was based on substantial evidence. o '- 0 Here, the court found that the board's written decision "wholly" failed to identify how and to what extent the request for a special use excep- tion deviated from the county's comprehensive land use plan and failed to satisfy the criteria of the county's zoning regulations. The board had argued that the comments in the record made by the board members who voted against Verizon's request gave that information but the court did not agree, calling those comments "brief and generalized." The court granted judgment in favor of Verizon "only to the extent that...that the Board...failed to furnish a written decision which satisfie[d] the requirements of [the Act]." With regard to Verizon's argument that the board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence in the record; the court found that, without the sufficient written explanation of the board's reasons for denying the application, it was unable to undertake a meaningful analysis and render an informed decision on that point. The board was ordered to return a written decision that satisfied the Act, but it warned the board that it could not "rely on rationalizations constructed after the fact to support the denial of [Verizon's] application." After the board supplied the written decision, the court would consider motions from both parties with regard to the issue of whether it satisfied the "substantial evidence" portio~ of the Act's requirement. See also: MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 400 E3d 715 (9th Cir. 2005). 0 ') 3 89