## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 07

- 3949 D AN H ELCHER, et a l., P laint if fs -App el lants , v . D EARB O RN C OUN TY, I NDI ANA B O ARD OF Z ONI NG A PPEALS, et a l., D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, N ew Alb any D ivisi on. No . 4:0 6-CV-00 10 2-SEB-WGH— Sara h Evans Barke r,Ju dge
.
A RGUED O CTOBER31, 2008

— D ECIDED F EB RU AR Y 9, 2010

Befo re F LA UM, R OV NERa nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges . R OV NER, Cir cuit Judge

. C i nc i nn a t i Be l l Wi r e l e s s , LL C ( “Be l l ” ) a pp l i e d fo r a c o nd i t i o na l u s e p e r mi tt o c o ns t r uct a wi r el es s co m m uni ca ti o n f ac i l i ty( es se nt i al l y, a ce l l pho ne tower) o n p ro pertyo w ned by Dan and M er ryH el cher2 N o. 07

- 3949

For the sake ofbrevity, w e will refer t o t h e plaint iff s coll ec- 1 t i vel y a s “Be l l

. ” Thei r i nt er es t s i n the appe al ar e, f or the m os tpa r t, a l i gn e d. i n Dearbo rn County, Ind i ana. W hen the l oca l Boar d of 1 Zo ni ngAppea l s ( “Zo ni ngBo ar d” o r “ Bo ar d”) de nied th e appli cati on, Bel l sued t h e B oar d and it s m em ber s for vi o l at i ngv ar i o us pr o vi si o ns o fthe Te l ec o m m uni ca ti o ns A ct of 1996 , 47 U
. S. C. § 332( c)

. The dist ri ct court g ra nted su m m ar y j udg m en t i n f av o r o fthe de fen dan ts , a nd B e l l a p p e a l s . We a ffi r m.

I. Be ll, a w i re l ess se rv i ce pr ovi der, wanted to c l ose a gap i n cel l phone si gnalco ver age o n a str etch ofJ am i son Road i n De arbo r n Cou nt y, Indi an a ( “Co unty ”)

. The c o m pan y s o ugh tt o b u i l d a c e l l p h o n e t o we r o n th e H e l c h e r s ’ l a nd , a pa r ce l z o ne d “ Agr i cul tu r al ” unde r the De arborn County Zoni ng Ordi nance ( “Ordi nance”)

. S ecti on 3 15 of Art ic l e 3 o fthe Or di na nc e r equi r ed th atBe l l o bt ain a condi ti ona l use perm i t fro m the Zoni ng Boar d i n or der t o bui l d the t ower a t that s i te. R. 23 , Ex. 1, at10 19. A rt i cl e 1 5 ofthe Ordinan ce r egul ate s the pl acem ent, co nstr ucti on an d m od ifica tio n of ce llp h on e t ow er s in ord er to m in im i ze the i r “ ne g at i ve i m pac t o n the c ha r ac te r a nd e nv i r o nm ent o fthe County and t o prot ect the he al th, sa fety and w elfar e o fthe pu bl i c. ” R. 23 , Ex. 2, at10 23. A rt i cl e 9 of t h e O rd in an c e g ov er n s t h e u se of lan d zo n ed A gr icul tu r ala nd a l l o ws no n- ag r i cul tu r alus es ( i nc luding the c onst ructi on of tel eco m m unica ti ons towers ) underN o. 07

- 3949 3

T he text of A rticle 9 w as no t in clu d ed in th e reco rd on ap p eal, 2 b u t w as inclu d ed in the C ou nty ’ s ap p en d ix. T he O rd ina nc e in its en t i re t y m ay be vi ewed atww w. dea rbo rn c ounty. or g/pl ann i ng/ O ffici a l_ D o cu m en ts.h tm (la st v isi te d Jan . 12 , 20 1 0 ). ce r ta i n c i r cumst an ce s. T he Co unty e m pl o y ed two c o n- 2 su l ta nt s to a ss i stthe Zo ni ngBo ar d i n mak i ngdeci si o ns re l ate d to cellp h one towers. Dic k Com io fthe Center f or M un i ci palS o l ut i o ns ( “ CMS ” ) a nd R o n Eb e l ha r o fH. C. N u tt i n g C om p an y (“ N u tt in g” ) w or ke d for a p p ro x imat e l y tw en t y mo nths wi th Be l l i n pr e pa r i ngthe a ppl ication f o r a pe r m i t to b ui l d the t o wer . CM S a nd N ut tingha d a ss i st ed th e Zo ni ngB oar d i n r ev i ewing twe l ve pr ev i o us c o ndi ti o na l us e per m i t appl i ca ti o ns re l ating to wir el ess f aci l i ti es. A s r equi re d und erthe Ordinance , B el l enga ged i n a pr eappli cati on m eet i ng with Ebel har to dis cuss the pro

posed to w er . A t that Au gust 11, 20 04 m eet i ng, Ebel har i denti fi ed ei ghtee n re quir em ents th at Bel l needed to addr es s i n o r der for i ts a ppl i ca ti o n t o c o m pl y wi ththe Ordinance. The pl ai nti ff s cl ai m ed to w or k di l i gently t o m eetal l o fthe re l evantr equi re m ents, and on F eb ru ar y 9 , 20 05 , the y s ubmi tt ed th ei r a ppl i ca ti o n t o Co m i a nd Ebel har f orr evi ew . Com i responded on Febr uary25 , 20 05, wi tha l et te r detai l i ngfi fte eni ns uffi ci en ci es wi ththe ap p li cati on. Som e of th e item s w ere sim p le docu m en tary r equi r ement s su cha s si g natu re s fr o m l an d o wner s, a nd so m e c o n c e rn s w er e m or e s u b st an tiv e c alls for a d d iti onalcal cul ati ons, as ses sm en ts, and re port s. Bel l pro vi ded supplem entali nfo rm ati on t o the c onsul tants4 N o. 07

- 3949

m any t i m es ove r the ne xt s ev er al m onths i n or der t o add re ss the c oncerns r ai sed i n Com i ’ s l ett er . Be ll a l so m ade s ubs ta nt i ve c ha ng es t o the pl an, s ucha s r edu cing the he i ght o fthe tower fro m 25 0 t o 190 feet, i n or der t o el i m i nate the ne ed to co m plywith the Fe deralA vi ati on A d m inistration’s requ irem en ts for l ighting th e tow er. The r ev i sed pl an al so m ove d the t ower furtherfro m the pr operty l i ne to co m plywith s etba ck re quir em ents. T h e c on su lta n ts a sk ed B ell to d em on st ra te th at it co u ld n o t“ c o - l o c a t e ” th e t r a n s mi t t e r s , th a ti s , u s e a l r e a dy e xi s t i ngt o we r s t o p r o v i de c o v e r a g e f o r J ami s o n Ro a d. Bel l i nvest i gat ed f our exi sting wir eless t ower s tr uctures an d r ej ec te d a l l o fthe m a s i na dequa te t o pr o vi de th e needed cove ra ge. On J anuary23 , 2 006, Com i se nt a l ett er to the Co unty ’ s Pl anCo m m i ssi o n s ta tingtha t th e co nsul tants had com p leted thei r re vi ew o fthe appli cati on an d rec om m ended gra nti ng the co nd i ti onaluse perm it to const ruct the t ower o n the H el cher s’ pro perty
. The Zo ni ng Bo ar d m et o n M ar ch 14, 20 06 to c o ns i derthe appli cati on. Ebel har re port ed the fi nd i ngs o fhi s r evi ew of the ap p li cation and opine d tha t B e ll an d the H elche rs ha d m etthe r equi r ement s ne ce ss ar y t o c o ns tructthe tow er, a nd tha t th e Zo ni ngBo ar d s ho ul d g r an t th e p erm i t. In eve rypri orper m i t a pp l i cati on f orwir el ess co ver age re vi ew ed by the c onsul tan t s , the ce l l phone car ri erhad bee n re quir ed to co- l oca te i ts tr ansm i tte rs on exi sting st ructur es. Thi s was the fi r sti ns ta nc e s i nc e th e i nc ept i o n o fthe Or di na nc e i n whi chthe co ns ul ta nt s r ec o m m en ded th atthe Z onin g B oard all ow c ons tru ction of a ne w tow er. A Boa rd m embe r a sk ed Ebe l ha r abo utthe v i su ali m pact ofthe tower, and he s tat ed that i t w as t h e le asti ntrusi ve towerN o. 07

- 3949 5 possibl e that would pro vi de th e needed ser vi ce. A nother B oard m em ber asked for clarification on w ho had perf o r m ed th e te ch nicals tu di es t o de te r m i ne whethe r the tower w as necess ar y a nd Ebel har confi rm ed that Bel l had done the w or k a nd thatEbel har’ s com pany had re vi ew ed thos e s tudie s. A num be r o fl an do wner s who o ppo se d the b ui l di ng o f th e t o we r s p o k e a t th e me e t i n g t o e x p r e s s the i r c o nc er n s a b ou t t h e v isu al im p ac t o f th e t ow er a n d its d et rim entaleffect on pro pertyvalues. A r eales tat e a pp ra i ser addr es se d pr o per tyvalue s an d c o nc erns r eg ar di ngpo te nti al h a z a r ds t o c hi l dr e n pr e s e nt e d b y the p r o po sed tower. A co m m unity pl anner opi n ed at the hear i ng tha t th e p lain tiffs h ad n otm et t h e r e q u ire m en ts of th e O rd ina nc e b e c a us e the y ha d no t pr o v i de d a Vi s ua l I m pact A sse ssm ent as requir ed by parag ra ph 23 o fS ecti on 1 512 o fthe O rdi na nc e . T he Z o ningBo a r d a l s o c o ns i de r e d a re p or t filed by W ire les s A p p lic a t ion s C or p or at ion, a con su lt i ngfi r m hi r ed byt wo l an do wner s, Kar ena nd Davi d C ody. The r epor t co nceded that the pro posed tow er would prov i de the desi re d cove ra ge on J am i son R oad but sugge ste d that o thersi tes co uld del i ver su p erior service w ith a sm all er i m p act on the su rr o un di ngc o mm un i t y . An e ng i ne e r fr o m Be l l r e b utted th at claim by not ing th at th e tow er he ight w a s nec essary to p ro vid e adequ ate co ver age and that Bel l had re vi ew ed an d r ej ec te d a s i na dequa te f o ura l te r na te s i te s f o r the tow er. A fte r th e t es tim on y, Z o n i n g B oa rd m em b er P at ric ia Bak e r mov e d t o de ny the a pp l i c a t i o n f o r a s pe c i al use6 N o. 07

- 3949 perm i t. B y a vote ofthree to o ne, the Zoni ng Boar d denied th e appl i ca ti o n. At the M ay2 00 6 m ee tingo fthe Zo ni ng Board, m any d isp u tes ar ose duri ng the pro cess to a pp r o v e the mi nu t e s o f the M a r c h mee t i ng . M e mbers of the Zoni ng Boar d, re prese ntati ves ofBel l and the H el cher s, an d ob j ec tin g la n d ow n er s a ll su g g e s te d n u m er ou s re visi o ns t o the m i nut es . U nabl e t o ag r ee on m an y poi nt s, the Bo ar d t ab led ap p r o va l o fthe min ut es unt i l the ne xt m ee ting . In e ar l y J une 2 00 6, the pl aint i ff s as k ed the Board notto approv e the r evi sed m i nutes a nd al so re que st ed th atthe Board re co ns i deri ts de ci si o n t o de ny th e pe rm it app li cation
. A t the J un e m eet in g , the Boa rd approved t he m i nutes a s r evi sed ( “M i nutes”) and denie d th e pl aint i ff s’ r eque stt o r ec o ns i derthe de ni alo fthe per m i t appl i ca ti o n. T h e n e x tmo n th, B e l l a n d th e H e l c h e r s fi l e d a c o mpla i n t ag ainst the Boa rd and i ts i nd i vi du alm em ber s, al l eg i ngs ev er alv i o l at i o ns o fthe Te l ecom m uni ca ti o ns A ct o f19 96, 47 U
. S. C. § 3 32( c) ( the “ A ct”)

. Count Ial l ege d that the Board’ s deci si on w as not base d o n su b stanti al evi dence conta i ned i n a w ri tte n re cor d, as re quir ed by 47 U. S

. C. § 3 3 2 ( c ) ( 7 ) ( B) ( i i i )

. C o un tI Ia s s e r t e d tha tthe a pp roved M inu tes of the M arch 14, 2006 Zon ing B oard m eet i ng di d not co nsti tute a suffi ci ent w ri tte n deci si on a s r equi r ed by4 7 U. S

. C. § 3 32 ( c) ( 7) ( B) ( i i i )

. In Co untI I I, the pla i nti ff s con te nd ed that the Zoni ng Boar d’s deci si on unreas onabl y di scr i m i na ted ag ai nst Bel l, i n vi ol ati on o f 47U. S

. C. § 33 2( c) ( 7) ( B) ( i ) ( I )

. CountI V m aint aine d tha t th e Zo ni ngBo ar d’ s dec i si o n h ad th e effec t o fde ny i ngthe provi si on o fwir el ess co m m u ni cati on s er vi ces, in vi ol a-N o. 07

- 3949 7 ti o n o f4 7 U. S

. C. § 33 2(c)( 7) ( B) ( i ) ( I I )

. Co unt s V tho ug h I X, w hich a re no t ati ss ue i n thi s appe al, a l l eg ed vi o l at i o ns ofthe Consti tuti on a nd the ci vi l r i ghts ofthe appli cants. The dis tr i ct c ourtgr anted the defen d an ts ’ m oti on f or parti alsum m ar y j u dgm ent o n the fi rs t four counts of th e c om p lain t. Hel cherv. D earb orn Co unty, 50 0 F
. Supp.2d 1100 ( S. D. I nd . 2 007)

. The co urt rej ecte d the pl ai nti ff s’ cl ai m tha t th e Zoni ng Boar d M i nutes were an inaccurat e re c o r di ng o f wha t we nt o n du r i ng the mee t i ng a nd that the M i nutes were n ot adequate t o m eetthe A ct’ s r equi re m en t th atthe de ci si o n b e “in wr i ting . ” The c o ur t foun d t h a t a w rit te n d ec isio n w as ad eq u at e s o lon g a s it inform ed the ap p li can t of th e local govern m en t’s dec i s i o n d e n y i n gth e a p p l i c a t i o n . In th i s i n s t a n c e , t he cour t found, the m eet i ng M i nutes fulfi l l ed this re quir em en t b ec au se th e M in u te s e n ab led th e c o u rtto effic ien tly j udg e th e Bo ar d’ s fi ndi ng s an d c o nclusio ns a g ains t th e rec or d. The cour t a l so note d that the M i nutes s up pli ed the re asons underl yi ng the Zoning Boar d’s deci si on b y n ot in g t h e s ec t i o n s o f th e O rd in an c e w h ich th e a p p licants f ai l ed to sa ti sfy. The co urt f ound that the M i n u tes al l o wed f o r mean i ng fulj udi ci alr ev i ew o fthe de ci si o n, and that n o m or e was r equi re d by the Tel eco m m unica

tions A ct. Th e cou rt als o f o u nd that the Z onin g B oard ’s dec i s i o n wa s s up po r t e d b y s ub s t a nt i a l e v i de nc e , tha t th e den i alo fth e p er m i t di d no t effec ti ve l y pr o hibi t th e p rovisi on of w irel ess ser v ice , and that the Z onin g B oard did notunrea sonab l y di scri m i nate am ong w i re l ess ser vi ce pr ovi ders. Bel l appeal s.8 N o. 07

- 3949 II. On app eal, Bel l ar gues that the Zoni ng Boar d’s deci si on do es no t co m pl y wi ththe “ i n wri ting ” r equi r ement o fthe Tel eco m m unica ti ons A ct, t h at the Boa rd’ s deci si on i s no t su ppo r te d b y s ubs ta nt i ale vi den ce , tha t t he d en i alo fthe per mi te ffe c t i v e l y p r o hib i t s Be l l fr o m pr o v i di ngwi r e l ess com m un ication services, and that t he Zon ing B oard ’s deci si on unre aso nabl y di scr i m i na te d am ong w i re l ess p rovide rs, alli n violation of 47 U

. S. C

. § 332(c)(7)

. Be fore w e a ddr e s s the me r i t s o fthe a r g ume nt s , we a r e o bl i ged to a ddr es s o urjuris di ct i o n. The de fen dan ts s o ug hta nd th e d ist ric t c ou rtgra n te d p ar tia l s u m m ar y jud gm en t in f av o r o fthe de fen dan ts o n Co unts I thr o ug h I V o fthe c om pla i nt. A s we m enti oned abo ve, the pla i nti ff s pl ed ana ddi ti o na l fi ve c o unt s ( Cou nt s V thr o ug h I X) a l l eg i ng vi ol ati ons ofthe Consti tuti on a n d o f t hei r ci vi l r i ghts. Aft e r th e c o u r te n t e r e d i t s o r d e r g r a n t i n gp a r t i a l s u mm ar y j ud gm ent, the parti es fi l ed a “Joint M oti on f orFinal J ud gm ent. ” R. 47

. In that m oti on, the part i es express ed a “ desi re to [ a] pp ealthe En tr y without the nee d to l i ti gat e thei r re m ai ni ng cl ai m s a t thi s ti m e. ” R. 47, at1. The pl aint i ff s ag r ee d t o di smiss wi th o utpr ej udi ce the r emai ni ngc o unt s i n e xc ha ng e f o r a pr o m i se fr o m the defe nd ants to w ai ve a n y s tatute o fl i m i tat i ons defe nse i fthe pla i nti ff s l ate r m ove d to re i nstat e those cl ai m s. The di st r i ct courtthe n e nt er ed a j udg m en t di smi ss i ng Cou nt s V thr o ug h I X wi th o utpr ej udi ce a nd di smissing Cou nt s Ithro ug h I V wi thpr ej udi ce f o r the r ea so ns s t a t e d i n th e c o u r t ’ s e a r l i e r o r d e r g r a n t i n gp a r t i a l s u mm ar y j ud gm ent. The co urt sta ted that it s earl i ero rderN o. 07

- 3949 9

w as “n ow m ad e a fina l an d a p p ealable J ud gm en t the re bei ng no j ust ca use fordel ay i n i ts entr y. ” R. 49 , at1. On app ea l, bo th par ti es ass er ted thatwe have j uri sdic

t i o n un de r 2 8 U. S

. C. § 1 2 9 1 , wh i ch all o ws u s t o de c i de appe al s o f“ al l fi na l de ci si o ns o fthe di st r i ctc o urt s ofthe U ni t e d S t a t e s [
. ] ” T he p a r t i e s ’ a g r e e men ttha t“ a j ud i ci al d et er m in at ion is a fin al d ec isio n (an d t h u s a p p ea lab le und er Se cti on 1291 ) , does not m ake i t s o. ” I TO FCA, Inc . v. M egaTrans Logisti cs, Inc. , 235 F.3d 360 , 363 (7th C ir. 2000). We h a v e a n i n d e p e n d e n t o b l i g a t i o n t o d e t e r mi ne o ur j u ris d ict ion
. Id

. W he th er a dec isi on is final for the p urposes o fS ecti on 1 291 depend s on w hetherthe deci si on by th e di st r i ctc ou rt en d s th e l i ti g at i o n o n the mer i ts a nd l eave s no thi ng f orthe cour t t o d o b u t execute the j ud gm en t. Coope rs & Ly b r and v. Li ve s ay, 437 U

. S. 463, 467 (1978); I TO F CA , 2 35 F
. 3d at3 63

. In thi s ca se , the c o ur t an d the p ar ti es express l y r ese rv ed to the pla i nti ff s the r i ght t o re i ns t a t e Co un t s V thr o ugh I X a ft e r the a pp e a l

. T hus, the j ud g men tdi d n o tr e s o l v e the l i t i g a t i o n o n the me r i t s, an d S ec ti o n 1 29 1 m ayno t su ppl y j ur i sdi ct i o n. A l though the di str i ct c ourtdi d not e xpressly invoke Fede r alRul e o fCi vi l Pr o ce dur e 54 ( b) , the c o ur t’s l anguage tr acks that r ule , wh i ch al l ows entr y o fa fi nal j udg m en t o n fewe r tha n a l l of the c l ai m s “o nl y i fthe cour t express l y deter m i nes that ther e i s no j u st reason f o r d e l a y . Othe r wi s e , a n y o r d e r o r o th e r d e c i s i o n, h o wev er des i g na te d, tha t adj udi ca te s fewe r tha n a l l the cl ai m s o r th e r i g ht s an d l i ab i l i ti es o f fewe r th an all the p a r t i e s d o e s no t en d th e a c t i o n a s t o a n y o fth e c l a i ms o r pa r ti es a nd may b e r ev ised a t an y t i m e be f o r e th e10 N o. 07

- 3949

A ltho u g h the Sev en th Circu it ha s y et to rule on the “in 3 wri t i ng” r equi re m en t, our own J udge Cudahy c ons i der ed the qu esti o n w he n sitting b y d esign atio n o n th e N inth C ircu it. SeeM et ro PC S, Inc. v. C i ty and C ounty of San Fra nci sc o , 400 F. 3d 7 1 5 , 72 1 -2 3 (9t h C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) (C u d a h y , J. , w ri tin g for th e p a n el ). W e are gre atly aid ed b y his an aly sis. en tr y of a j u d gm en t a dj u d ica t in g a ll th e c laim s a n d all th e pa rties’ rights an d l iab ili t ie s . ” Fed

. R. Civ. P. 54(b). W e n e e d n o tde t e r mi ne w hethe r the j ud g men twa s p r o pe r l y e n t e r e d u n d e r R u l e 5 4 , h o we v e r, b ec a u s e a ft e r we r a i s e d thi s i s s ue a to r a l a r g ume nt, the p a r t i es e nt e r e d a j oi nt st i pu l ati on di sm i ssing Counts V though I X w i th prej ud i ce. That sti pu l ati on “w i nd [ s] up the litig ati on and el i m i nat[ es] the barto o ur j uri sdic ti on. ” J TC Pe t r ol e um C o. v. P iasa M otor Fue ls, Inc. , 190 F. 3d 775, 776- 77 (7th C ir. 19 99 ). W e p ro c ee d th en to th e m er its of th e a p p ea l.

A. The A ct r equi re s that “ [ a] ny deci si on bya St ate o r loc al gov er nm ent or i nstr um ental i ty ther eof to deny a re quest t o pla ce, co nstr uct, o r m od ify per sonalwir el ess ser vi ce f aci l i ti es shal l be in w ri ti ng and supporte d by substa nti alev i dence co ntai ned i n a wri tte n re c or d.” 47 U. S

. C. § 3 32 ( c) ( 7) ( B) ( i i i )

. Be l l a nd the Hel ch er s co nte nd th at th e Z on in g B oa rd ’s d e c i sio nd oe s n otco m p ly w ith th e A c t’s req u ire m en t t h at th e d ec isio n m u st be “in wri ting . ” W ha t i s ne ce ss ar y f o r a n a dequa te wri ting und erthe Tel eco m m unica tio n s A ct i s a n i ssue offi rs t i mpr e s s i o n i n o u r c i r c u i t
. T h e r e a r e d i ffe r i n g v i e ws 3 am ong the c i rcui ts a s to w hat co nsti tutes an a dequ ateN o. 07

- 3949 11

w ri ti ng. See M e t r oPC S, Inc . v. Ci ty an d Coun ty of Sa n F r ancis co , 4 0 0 F
. 3 d 7 1 5 , 7 2 1

- 2 3 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( n o t i n gthe c irc u it s p lit on th e is su e); Ne w Par v. Ci ty of Sagi naw , 30 1 F. 3d 390, 39 5 ( 6th Ci r. 20 02) ( col l ectin g the vi ew s o f se ve ra l c o u r ts ); Sou t hwe s t e r n Be l l M ob i l eSy s . , Inc . v. Todd, 244 F. 3d 51 5 9 (1 st Cir

. 20 01) ( noti ng the br oad r ange of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f th e “ i n wr i t i n g ” r e q u i r e me n t i n t he dist ri ct a nd ci rcui t co urts )

. S om e co urts r equi re thatl oca l g o ve r nm en ts e xpl i ca te th e r ea so ns f o r the i r de ci si o ns a nd l i nkthei r c o nc l us i o ns t o s pe c i fi c e v i de nc e i n the r e c o r d. O m nipoint C om m c’ns, Inc . v . Plann ing & Zo ning Co m m ’n o f Wa lling

fo rd, 83 F. Su p p . 2d 306, 30 9 ( D. Conn. 2000 ) ( “[ a] l o ca l z o ni nga utho r i tymusti ss ue a de ci si o n in w ri ting se tt i ngf o r ththe r ea so ns f o r the de ci si on an d l i nk i ng its co n c lu sio n s t o e vid en c e in th e re c o rd ”); Il l i nois RSA N o. 3, Inc. v. Co unty of Peori a , 9 6 3 F
. S up p. 7 3 2 , 74 3 ( C. D. I l l

. 1 9 9 7 ) ( the t e rm s “ i n wr i t i ng ” a nd “ wr i t t e n r e c o r d” “pl ainl y r equi r e th e st at e o r l o ca l g o ve r nm en ts t o i ss ue deci si ons re gar ding p ersonalwir el ess se rv i ce f aci l i ti es i n wr i tten f o r m , s ta tingthe r ea so ns f o r the de ci si o n, and provi ding w ri tte n evidence ora w ri tte n re cor d of th e p ro c ee d in gs th at led to th e go ve rn m en t e n tit y’s d ec isi on”)

. On the o therend ofthe spectr um i s the Fo urth Ci r cui t, which acc ept ed as a dequa te a s ta m p o fthe w or d “DE N I ED ” o n a z oni ng per m i t a pp l i cati on . A T &T Wirel es s P C S, Inc. v. Wins ton-Sale m Zo n in g B d. of Adjustm ent, 1 7 2 F
. 3 d 3 0 7, 3 1 2

- 1 3 ( 4 th C i r . 1 9 9 9 ) ( wr i t i ng t he w or d “d en ied ” on th e fac e of an ap p lica tio n t o b u ild a wi r el es s co m m uni ca ti o ns t o weri s adequa te t o meetthe “in w rit in g” req u ire m en t); A T & TWirel es s P C S, Inc. v . City C ounci l o

f Virginia Beach , 155 F.3d 423 , 429-30 (4th C ir.12 N o. 07

- 3949 1998 ) ( fi nd i ng tha t the “in w ri ti ng” r equi re m ent was m et byb o thth e c onde ns ed m i nut es o fa c o unc i l meet i ng consi deri ng an a p p li cati on f ora perm i t t o bui l d a te l ec o mm un i c a t i o ns t o we r, a nd b y the wo r d “ deni e d” sta m ped o n a l ett erfro m the pla nning com m i ssi on describi ng the appli cati on)

. In the l att ercas e, the Four th Cir cui t spe ci fi ca l l y r ej ec te d the c o nt en ti o n tha t th e wri tingmusti nc l ude a s ta te m en t o f“ fi ndi ng s an d c o ncl usi ons, and the re aso n orbas i s there f or . ” Virginia B each , 15 5 F
. 3d at 430. I n the m i dd l e a re co u rt s that s tr i ke a ba l ance b etween a dubi ous, l i ter alr eadi ng o fthe A ct a n d a prag m ati c, pol i cy-ba se d approa ch. The purpose ofthe “i n w ri ti ng” re quir em ent i s t o al l ow fo r m eani ngful j ud i ci alr evi ew ofl oca l go ver nm ent a cti ons re l ating to te l eco m m unica

tio n s t ow er s. U SCO C o f G re at e rM i s s our iv. Ci ty of F e rg u s o n , MO , 58 3 F
. 3d 10 35 , 1 04 1 ( 8th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( ho l di ng th atthe c en tr alc o nc ern o fthe “ i n wr i ting ” re qui r ement i s to e nabl e effec ti ve j udi ci alr ev i ew o fl o ca l g o ve r nm ent ac tio n ); M et r oPCS , 4 00 F
. 3d at7 22 ( Cudah y, J
. , s i tt i ng b y d es ign at ion ) (s am e); Ne w Par, 30 1 F

. 3d at 395- 96 (sa m e); Todd, 244 F.3d at60 (sa m e). T h e F ir s t C irc u it f o und tha t th er e was n o t ex tu alb as i s f o r r equi r i ng f or m al fin d in gs of fac t a n d co n c lu sio n s o f law

. Todd, 24 4 F.3d a t 5 9. T he cou rt noted that l ocal zoning board s are p rim ari l y s taffed by l ayper sons and i t would notbe r ea l i st i c to e xpe cthi g hl y de ta i l ed fi nd ings o ff ac t an d c on c l u s i on s o f law

. Id

. On the o therhand, the Todd cou rt r emar k ed, per m i tt i ng l o ca l zo ni ng bo ar ds to i ss ue d e n ials th at offe re d n o re as on s fo r th e d ec isio n w ou ld fru st ra te m ea n in gfu l j u d icia l rev iew
. Todd, 24 4 F

. 3d at 60.N o. 07

- 3949 13 The Fi rs t Ci rcui t there f or e co ncl ud ed that the wri tte n dec i si o n “ m us t co nt ain a s uffi ci en t ex pl an at i on o fthe reason s for t h e pe rm it den ialto al low a review ing cou rt to e va l ua te the e vi den ce in the reco r d s uppo r ting thos e r eas ons. ” Todd, 244 F.3d at60 . Th e Six th C irc u it f o l l o we d s u i t i n Ne w Par, requ iring that a dec isi on of a l oca l go ver nm ent denying a re quest t o pla ce, con st ruct orm odi fy a wir el ess to w erm ust descr ibe the rea so n s for the denial and contain a s uffi ci ent e xplanat i on o ftho se r e a s o n s t o a l l o w a r e v i e wi n g c o u r t t o e v a l u at e th e ev id e n c e in th e re c or d th at su p p or ts th os e re as on s. New Par, 301 F.3d at39 5-9 6. Se ealso Sp r i ntSp e ct r um , L. P. v. P l a t t e Co u n ty, MO , 57 8 F
. 3d 727, 73 2 ( 8th Ci r. 20 09) ( assum i ng witho ut deci ding that the c or re ct s tandard f or th e “ inw rit in g” re q u i r e m en t is th e o n e e x p re ss ed in M e t roPCS , Ne w Par, a nd Todd ). W e j oin th e F ir s t, Si xt h an d N inth Circu its, the m aj ority of th e c ou rt s t h at h av e re ac h ed th is iss u e. T h e “ in w ri ti ng” r equi re m ent i s m et so l ong as the wri tte n deci si on co nt ains a s uffi ci en t ex pl anation ofthe r ea so ns f o r the per m i t den i alt o a l l o w a r ev i ewi ngc o ur t to eval ua te the ev id en c e in th e re c or d su p p or tin g t h os e r ea so n s. T h is st a nd a r d i s no t un l i k e o ur Ci r c ui t Ru l e 5 0 , wh i ch r equi r es di st r i ctj udg es t o pr o vi de r ea so ns f o r de ci si o ns th atr es o l ve a ny c l ai m o n the mer i ts o r t er m i na te the l i ti gat i on. Ci rcuitRule 50 “s er ves thre e functi ons: to cre ate the m entaldi sci pline thatan o b li gat i on t o sta te reas ons produces, to as sure the parti es that the c ourthas consi dered the i m port ant a rg u m ents, and to enabl e a re vi ew i ng co urt to know the r eas ons f orthe j ud gm en t.” D i Le o v. Er ns t& Young, 9 0 1 F
. 2 d 6 2 4 , 6 2 6 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 0 )

. As14 N o. 07

- 3949

N ot ev ery f ailu re to m eet the stand ard set i n C i rcu it R u le 4 5 0 re q u ir es re m a n d

. SeeUn i t ed Sta t es v. For m an , 553 F. 3d 585, 5 9 0 -9 1 (7t h C ir .), ce r t
. de ni ed , 1 2 9 S . Ct. 1924 and 129 S. Ct. 2817 ( 20 09 ) ( non c om pl i anc e with Ci rc ui tRul e 50 doe s no tal ways pre ven tj udi c i al r evi ew be c aus e the di s t ri c tc our t ’ s r ea s oni ng m a y b e a p p a re n t fro m th e r ec o rd ); Sto l l erv. P u re Fi shi ng Inc. , 5 2 8 F .3d 47 8 , 48 0 (7t h C ir .), cert
. d en i ed, 129 S. Ct. 609 ( 2008) ( no rem and fo r c om plianc e with Circ uit R ule 50 is nece ss ary when th e di s t ri c tc our t ’ s r ea s oni ng i s c l ea r f ro m both the rec ord and the court’ s briefs tat em en t). Si m il arl y, not e very f ai l ur e t o m ee tthe s t anda rd we have s etf or the “i n wri t i ng” r e q ui r e m e ntwi l l r e q ui r e r e ve r s a l o r r e m a nd

. w e d isc u ss ed ab ov e, th e p rim a r y p u rp os e o f th e “ in w rit in g” req u ire m en t fo r th e T ele c om m u n ica tio n s A c t is to a l l o w f o r m ea ni ng fulj udi ci alr ev i ew o fthe de ci si o ns o fl o ca l g o ve r nm en ts
. Kee pi ngi n m ind tha t l o ca l z o ni ng boar ds typi cal l y a re n ot populat ed w i th l aw yer s m uch l e s s j ud g e s , we c a nn o t e xp e c t s o mething a k i n to a j u d icia l op in ion . Th er efo re , a d ec isio n “in w rit in g” is ad eq u at e if it p ro vid es an ex p lan a t i o n t h at allow s u s, in c om b in at ion w it h t h e w rit te n rec or d , to d et er m in e if the deci si on i s s up port ed by substa nti alev i dence. 4 W i th that sta nd ar d in m i nd , w e turn to th e d eci si on i ss ue d b y the ZoningBo ar d. The “ wri ting ” i ss ue d b y the B oa rd is t h e s ev en te en -p ag e “ Z on in g B oa rd of A p p ea ls M i nut es ” f o r the M ar ch14, 2006 mee ting( th e sa m e M i nut es we r efer en ce d e ar l i er )

. Be ca us e th e contents o fthe M i nutes wil l al so be r el evantto wh etherthe de c i si on wa s s uppo r t e d b y s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , a qu e s t i o n we c o n s i d e r b e l o w, w e w i l l r e c o un tth e Mi n u t e s i n s o meN o. 07

- 3949 15 detai l

. The di scussi on o fBell’ s a pp l i cati on be gan with th e Zo ni ngBo ar d’ s Enf o r ce m en t Offi ce r de sc r ibingthe H el cher s’ l an d and sett i ng f or th the cr i ter i a t o be use d to e va l ua te the r eque st ed pe r m i t ( i nc l udi ngArt i cl es 3 a nd 15 o fthe Ordinance)

. The Enfo rce m ent Offi ceral so re view ed a Staff R e p ort and Si te Plan (both of w hich w ere at ta ch ed to the M i nut es and inc l ude d i n the r ec o r d) , a nd prese nted the re sul ts ofa bal l oo n tes t a t the pro perty
. Ebel har, the cons u lta n t hi re d by the Zoni ng Boar d, then pr e s e nt e d h i s re c o mm e nd a t i o n tha tthe p e r mi tb e a ppr o ve d. Eb elha r o pined th atthe a ppl i ca nt s ha d m etthe cri ter i a f orco nstr u c tin g the to w er, and that the t ower w as n ee d ed t o c los e a ga p in c ov er ag e. St ev e C ar r, a re prese ntati ve ofBel l, then tes tifie d that c o- l oca ti on was not possibl e in thi s instance , thatthe tower w oul d be safe, th at li ttle t r affi c w ou ld be gen erated by the tow er, that ther e was no w ay to hi de the s tr ucture fro m vi ew , that the s i te w ould not encr oac h on pr i vate pro perty, and that t h e t ow er w ou ld op er at e w ith inFC C req u ire m en ts . In re sponse to questi ons fro m B oa rd m em ber s, Carral so tes ti fi ed that the site was chose n beca use i t was hi g h e no ug h t o o ve r co m e i ss ue s w ith tr ee f o l i ag e an d w i nd i ng roads, thato thersi tes were not adequate, that the t ower pre sente d no h eal th- re l ate d ri sks l i nked to tower tr ansm i ssi ons, and th at the r educed 190- f oo t hei ght ofthe tower w oul d be a dequ ate ev en tho ugh a 2 20- f oo t t ower would be o pti m al

. A notherBel l r epres entat i ve con fi rm ed that J am ison R oad coverage w as th e prim ary ob j ec tiv e o f th e t o w e r , an d th at th is ro ad w as h ea vily t r a v e l e d.16 N o. 07

- 3949 The M i nut es ne xtde ta i led th e o bj ec ti o ns o fDa vi d a nd Kar enCo dy, r es i den ts o fa s ubdi vi si o n s i tu at ed adj ace nt to the a r ea wher e th e pr o po se d t o werw ou ld be c o nstr ucted. The at torney forthe Codys subm i tte d a wri tte n st at ementa nd i nt r o duce d a c o m m un i typl anne r a nd profess i onalp ro pertyapprai ser, bo th o fwh om te sti fi ed l ate r i n the hear i ng. The Codys, thr ough thei r att or ney, di d n o t di s pu t e the qu a l i t y o fthe s i g na l o n J a mi s o n Ro a d, th e st r uctur ali nt eg r i tyo fthe pr o po se d t o wer, o r the f act that the H el cher s’ proper ty had no part i cul ar hi st o r i ca l s i g ni fi ca nce. The Co dys ’ a tt o r ne y i ns te ad co nte st ed th e qua l i fi ca ti o ns o fNutt i ngto study, r ev i ew a nd r epo r t o n t ec hnical is su es s ucha s pr o pag at i o n maps . S he als o ass er ted thatthe A ct r equi re d a wir el ess pro vi der to dem onst ra te that the g ap i n cov er age exi ste d not for one provi der b ut for a l l pro vi ders. S he co ntended that the Act r equi re d w i re l ess pro vi ders to p ro ve that they ar e fi l l i nggap s in the l ea sti nt r us i ve manne r b y l o o k i ng at a l l a l t e r na t i v e s a nd r ul i ngo uto the r o pt i o ns . S he al so note d that th e A ct a l l owed l oca l go ver nm ents to r egul ate the pl ac emento ft o wer s, t ak i ngi nt o a cc o unt const ructi on, l oca ti on, ae sthet i c r eq uir em ents, vi sual j ud gm en ts a nd the effect on pro pertyvalues. The Codys, re prese nti ng a l ar ge num ber o fr esi dents i n the ar ea of the p r o po s e d t o we r, p r e s e nt e d p ho t o g r a ph s o fs e v e r al prop er ties, sho w i ng wh at the t ower would l oo k l i ke fr o m many ne arbyr es i den ce s. The y o pi ne d tha t th e towe r wo ul d b e i n the mo s tv i s ua l l y i nt r us i v e l o c a t i on po ss ibl e, a nd pr es en te d s o ftwa r e- enha nc ed pho to g r aph s b as ed on th os e t ak en d u rin g B ell’s ba llo o n t es t, m od ifi ed to s ho w a s ca l ed, g r aph i ca l r epr es en ta ti o n o ftheN o. 07

- 3949 17 propos ed to w er . A fterthe Codys expres sed thei r fearthat th ei r pr o per tyv alue woul d de cr ea se s i g ni fi ca nt l y, e i g ht othe r re si den ts s p oke ab out thei r fear s that the to w er w oul d reduce thei r proper ty valu es, change the chara cter o fthe ne i g hb o r ho o d, a nd b e vi su al l y i nt r us i ve . The reside nt s also qu estio n ed the n eces sity f or the tow er, whe the r c o - l o c a t i o n ha d b e e n a de quat e l y c o ns i de r e d, and w hetherthe l oss i n proper ty va lues woul d al so re sul t in a l oss to the county tax ba se. The Codys’ at torney then proffer ed add i ti onalo bj ecti ons to the i ssuance ofthe pe rm it. F i rs t, she ass er ted that Bel l had f ai l ed to subm i t a co m ple ted appli cati on pr i o r t o the a g en da dea dl i ne f o rthe meet i ng . Sec o nd, s he m ai ntai ned that the Zoning Boar d shoul d not a ccept ne w i nfo rm ati on subm i tte d b y the appli cant at the m ee ti ng. T h i r d , s h e n o t e d th a t a l th o u g h B e l l h a d a d e q u a t e t i me to com ple te i ts appli cati on a nd su p plyal l i nfo rm ati on r e qu i r e d b y the Ordi nance , the c o mpa nyh a d f a i l e d t o do so. S he al l ege d that the a pp l i cati on was i naccurat e o r incom p lete on its f ace be cau se t he prop erty ow ne rs had n ot si gned i t, bec ause the pr opose d l eas e be tw een th e H el ch er s an d Be l l was n ot signe d b y Be l l a nd thus Bel l had no pr oper ty i nter esti n the ar ea, and beca use Bel l ’ s ag en t si g ned a s “Appl i ca nt ” i n v i o l at i o n o fthe cer ti fi catio n on the f ace ofthe appli cati on. S he as ser ted th atthe appl i ca ti o n di d no t m ee t th e r equi r ement s an d p urp oses of A rticl e 15. I n p articu la r, aesth etic con side rati ons had been l ar gel y i gnor ed. Bel l had n ot re sponded to a r eque st f o r i nf o r m at i o n fr o m th e Cou nty ’s age nt about the ne cess i ty ofthe t ower, i n vi ol ati on o fPar agr aph 1 o fS ecti on 1 512. M or eov er , the appli cati on f ai l ed18 N o. 07

- 3949
to m eetthe re quir em ent of Se cti on 1 512, Par agr aph 7, requ ir i ngthe a ppl i ca ntt o s ho w the l o ca ti o n o fthe ne arest resid e n t . Th e ap p li cation also fai led to con form to Se cti on 1 512, Par agr aph 21, w h ich requi re d a wri tte n rep ort de m on s t rating m ean ingful efforts to secu re shar ed u se o f to w er s o r the use o fal ternati ve bui l dings orst ructur es. She note d that the appli cati on di d not e xplain w hy an ag r i c ul t ur a l s i t e wa s ne e de d, g i v e n tha t S e c t i o n 1 5 1 4 o f th e Or di na nc e r equi r ed appl i ca nt s to de m o ns tr at e why seve n other cate gor i es ofpro pertywere i nadequ ate before agricultu ral land cou ld be em p loyed for th is p urpo se. Sh e a l so r emar k ed th atS ec ti o n 1 51 4 r equi r ed th e appl i ca ntt o pr o ve tha t the c el l t o werwas no t ha r m ful t o th e n a t u r e a nd ch a r a c t e r o fth e n e i g hb o r h o o d o r c o mm uni ty, a nd s ta te d tha t th e r es i den ts ’ o bj ec ti o ns de m o nst r a t e d th a tth e a p p l i c a n t s h a d n o tme tth i s p r o v i s i o n. T h e C od ys’ at torney a l so prese nted the re porto fW i re l es s Appli cati o ns Co r po r at i o n, a c o ns ul tingfi r m c o ntact ed by the Codys. W i re l es s A pp l i cati ons re vi ew ed Be l l ’ s a pp l i c a t i o n a nd c o nc l ud e d tha t the He l c he r s ’ pro per ty did notse rv e the be st i n te re st o fthe com m unity. The c o ns ul t a nts ug g e s t e d a l t e r na t e s i t e s f o r the t ower and al so re com m ended that the to w er hei ght c oul d be re d u c ed t o 1 50 fee t w ith a n eg ligib le d iffer en c e in si gnalco ver age . The c er ti fi ed r ea l e st at e appr ai ser i nt r o duce d b y the Codys’ l aw yerte sti fi ed that, i n hi s o pini on, the propos ed to w er w ou ld n eg at ive ly im p ac t p ro p er ty va l u e s , although he conceded h e co uld notpre dictthe degre e o fi m pac t. The c o m m uni typl anne r the n t es ti fi ed th attheN o. 07

- 3949 19 appli cants f ai l ed to m eet the sta nd ar ds i n A rt i cl e 1 5, S e c t i o n 1 5 1 2 , P a r a g r a ph2 3 , wh i c h r e qu i r e d the a ppli cants to su b m it a n envi ro nm entali m pact as ses sm ent, i nc l udi nga v i su ali m pac t as se ss m en t tha t an aly ze d the vi sualeffect on a dj oi ni ng pro perti es. In f act, the vi sual i m pact ass ess m ent subm i tte d di d no t ackno w l ed ge that the t o werwoul d b e vi sibl e fr o m r es i den ti ala r ea s but i nstea d i nd i cate d i t was adj acent to und eve l oped wo o de d l a nd

. A t the end of a ll t estim ony , each of th e fi ve m em bers o fthe Zo ni ng Bo ar d s po k e ab o utthe a ppl i ca ti o n. The Ch ai r, J i m Deato n, r em ar ked thatthe appli cati on d id not com p ly w it h A rticl e 3, Section 315, item s (b) an d ( d ), w hich conc erne d the effec t o f th e tow er on th e ap p earance a nd char acte r ofthe surr ounding ar ea, as w ell as th e no r m ala nd o r der l y de ve l o pm en t an d i m pr o ve m en t o fs urrou nd i ngpr o per ty
. Bo ar d m embe r J ak e H o o gc o ncurr ed w i th the Chai r’ s a sse ssm en t that the appli cation d id n ot com p ly w it h A r t icl e 3, Section 315(b). Boa rd m embe r Pa tr i ci a Bak era g r ee d tha t th e pl acem en t o fthe to werwould i m pede the de ve l o pm en t an d i m pr o ve m en t of surrou n d in g prop erties i n violation of Section 315(d ). Board m em berM i ke H all questi oned w hetherBel l had in fa ctc o ns i der ed o th era r ea s f o r pl ac emento fthe t ow er. Th e fi na l Bo a r d me mbe r, J a ne Oh l man s i e k, a s s er ted that, al though the to w erwould not ad ve rsel y a ffect the s urr ounding ar ea i n so m e re spects , i t would notbe ha r m oni o us t o the e xi st i ngde ve l o pm en t o fs ur r o undi ng properties. S he al so opi ned that the a pp l i cants had not pr es en te d a n a dequa te v i su al i m pac t study t o the Zo ni ng Bo a r d.20 N o. 07

- 3949 Atth e c o n c l u s i o n o fa l l di s c u s s i o n, Z o n i n gB o a r d me mb er B ak er m ov ed to d en y th e ap p lica tio n for th e c on d iti onaluse perm it to const ruct the t ower a t the H el cher s’ proper ty because o fthe appli c ants’ nonco m pli ance w i th A rt i cl e 3 , S ecti ons 315(b) and 315 ( d); and A rt i cl e 1 5, Se cti on 1 514, subpara gr aph 5 o fthe Ordinance: M s. Bakerthen m ade a m oti on t o d eny the appli cati o n f o r the Co ndi ti o na l U se r eque stt o e st ab l i sha w i r e l e s s t e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s f a c i l i t y o nL o s e k a mp Road as a r esul t o fthe A pp l i cant’ s no ncom p liance w i th the f ol l owing ord in ances: A rt i cl e 3 , S ecti on 3 15, I t e m b, wh i c h s t a t e s tha tthe f a c i l i t y wi l l b e desi g ne d, const ructe d, oper ate d, and m ai ntai ned so as to be harm oni ous and a pp ro pri ate i n appearance with th e e xi sting o r i ntended charact ero fthe gener al vi ci ni ty and w hi ch shal lnotchan ge the ess enti al c ha r a c t e r o fthe a r e a ; Ar t i c l e 3 , S e c t i on 3 1 5 , I t e m d, whi chs ta te s th atthe f ac i l i tywi l l no t im p ede th e no r m ala nd o r der l y de ve l o pm ent and i m pr o ve m en t of t h e s u r r o u n d in g p ro p er ty for u se s p er m itt ed in th e d ist ric t; a n d A rt icle 15 , Sec tio n 15 14 , Su b 5 in w hi ch the A pp l i cant confl i cted with th e pr ovi si ons of the Zoni ng O rd i nance byf ai l i ng to adequatel y i l l ustr at e t h at all ot h er h illtop s a n d p o t e n t i al s ite s in the a r e a h a d b e e n i nv e s t i g a t e d. R . 2 3, Ex
. 28 , at17 06. Three m em ber s o fthe Board vo ted infav or of th e m ot ion an d on e o p p os ed it. Th e C h air d id not vot e be cause the Boa rd’ s r ule s per m i t th e C hai r to vo te o nl y t o break a ti e. The mot i o n pa ss ed an d the pe r mi twa s de ni e d.N o. 07

- 3949 21 The questi on i s whether the M in u tes, wh i ch w e hav e j ust s um m ar i zed, pre sent an adequate basi s forj u d i ci al re vi ew o fthe B oa rd ’ s deci si on. W e fi nd thatthe M i nutes ar e s uffi ci ent forthatpurpose. O ur t asko n appeal i s t o d eterm ine w he th er s u b s t an tial evid en ce in th e record su p p orts th e B oard ’s d ecision. 47 U
. S. C

. § 332(c)(7)( B )( ii i)

. The M i nutes c l ear l y del i n ea te the i ssues thatar ose with the a pp l i c at ion, the evi dence thatwas pres ented by bo ththe a ppl i ca nt s an d b y the res idents t o the Zo ni ng Board, the concerns of the appli cants and r esi dents o f th e ar ea, a nd the c o nc erns o fthe Bo ar d m embe r s. The M i nutes a l so ci te the s peci fi c pro vi si ons ofthe Ordinance that the m aj or i ty ofthe vot i ng m em ber s found w er e no t m et by the a pp l i cati on. The M i nutes thus prov i de an ex pl an at i o n tha t al l o ws us , i n c o m bina ti o n wi th the w ri tte n re cor d, to deter m i ne i fthe decisi on i s s up port ed b y s u b s t a n tia l ev id en c e. See M e t r oPCS , 40 0 F
. 3d at 722; Todd, 24 4 F

. 3d at 60. In f act, the M i nutes pr ov id e a gr eat d ea l of d et ail a b ou t t h e e vid en c e a n d th e a p p lica b le O rd in an c e p ro vis ion s. SeePl a tt e C ounty, 57 8 F
. 3d at 732 ( fi nd i ng a w ritten deci si on a dequ ate l y e xplained that i t was r ej ec tinga pr o po se d t o werf o r a es th et i c reasons wher e th e d eci si o n e xpl aine d tha t th e l o ca l g o ve r nm en t obj ecte d t o th e t ower be cause i ts si ze, l oca ti on a nd r el at i o ns hi p t o the s ur r o un di ngs c r e e ninga nd l a nd s c a pe w er e s uch that the t ow er w oul d dom i nate the i m m edi ate nei ghborhood so as to pre vent devel opm ent a nd use o fn eig hb or in g p ro p er ty ); M e t roPCS , 4 0 0 F
. 3 d a t72 3 ( affi r m i ngtha t a deci si o n m etthe “i n wr i ting ” r equi r ement w hen i t s um m ar i zed the f acts o fthe dispute, r eco u n ted th e pr o ce eding s, ar ti cul at ed th e r ea so ns f o r r ej ec ting22 N o. 07

- 3949 an appli cati on a nd expl ai ned the e vi denti ar y b asi s for th e r u l i n g); Ne w Par, 30 1 F

. 3d at 396 ( fi nd i ng a deci si on d i d n otm ee t t h e “ inw rit in g” req u ire m en t w h en it di d no t co nt ain a ny e xpl an at i o n o fthe reasons f o r the denia l but si m ply sta ted the re quest w as denie d “ base d on th e fa c ts p re se n te d an d th e B oa rd ’s d et er m in at ion ”); Todd, 244 F. 3d at 60 ( fi nd i ng adequ at e a wri tte n deci si on that “o ffer s l i tt l e ex pl an at i o n a nd few f ac ts ” be ca us e th e re aso ns were sta ted with suffi ci ent c l ar i ty to perm i t a n as se ss m en t o fthe ev ide nc e i n the r ec o r d s uppo r ting th e r ea so ns )

. On th e thresh ol d que st i o n o fwhethe r the M i nut es met th e “in wr i ting ” r equi r em ent, we co ncl ud e that the M i nutes m et the s tandard we setf or th abov e.

B. B e l l a n d th e He l c h e r s n e x tc o n t e n d th a tth e Z o ni ng Bo ar d’ s dec i si o n de ny i ngthe i r a ppl i cation f o r a c o nditionaluse perm i t was notsupporte d by s ubstanti al evi dence

. Recal l thatthe Tel eco m m unica ti ons A ct r equi r es tha t “[ a] ny de ci si o n b y a S ta te or l o ca l g o ve r nm ent o r i nstr um ental i ty th er eofto deny a r equest to pla ce, co nstr uct, o r m odi fy per sonalwir el ess serv i ce f aci l i ti es shal l be i n w ri ti ng and supporte d by s ubstanti al e v i de nc e c o nt a i ne d in a wr i t ten re c o r d. ” 4 7U. S

. C. § 3 3 2(c )(7) (B )(iii). T h e s u b st an tia l ev id en c e s ta n d ar d is hi g hl y de fer en ti alt o the l o ca l governm en t m ak i ngthe d ec isio n . Voi c e S t r e am M i n n e ap ol i s , In c . v . S t
. Croix Cou n ty, 342 F. 3d 818, 83 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03)

. W e a pp l y the sa m e t est f o r s ubs ta nt i ale vi den ce unde r the Te l ec o m m uni ca ti onsN o. 07

- 3949 23 Act th atwe appl y i n o urre vi ew o fthe de ci si o ns o fa dm i ni str ati ve age nci es. P ri m eCo P ersonal Com m c’ns, L. P
. v. City of M e q uon , 352 F.3d 11 47, 1 14 8 (7t h C ir. 20 03 ); Voic e St r e am , 34 2 F
. 3d at8 30
. S ubs ta nt i ale vi dence is “ su chr el ev an t evi de n c e as a re aso nabl e m i nd m i ght a ccept a s a dequ ate to supp or t a co ncl usi on. ” Vo iceS tr e am , 34 2 F
. 3d at 830 ( quoti ng A eg e r t e rv . C i ty o f D e l a f i e l d, WI , 174 F

. 3d 886, 88 9 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99) )

. The party s eek i ng to o vert u rn the l oca l zoni ng bo ar d’s deci si on has the burden o fpro vi ng tha t the dec i si on i s no t s up port ed by substa nti alev i dence. Voic e St r e am , 342 F.3d at83 0. W e h a v e fo u n d th at th er e is no pra cti caldi ffer ence between the substa nti alev i dence st an dar d a nd the c l ea r er r o r st an dar d, and so the r el ev an t q u es tio n is w h e t h e r t h e Z on in g B oa rd cle ar ly er re d in re fu sin g t o iss u e t h e p er m it. Pr i meCo , 3 52 F
. 3d at1 14 9. The Zoni ng Boa rd rej ecte d the pl ai nti ff s’ appli cati on f or a co nd i ti onaluse perm i t be cause the a p p licat i on di d not com portwith three pro vi si ons ofthe Ordinance. I n pa r t i c ul a r, the Z o ningBo a r d fo un d tha tthe a pp l i cation d id n ot satisfy A rticl e 3, Se c t io n s 315(b) and ( d ), an d A rt icle 15 , S e c t i on 15 14 (5). W e w ill ex am in e, in t u r n , w ha t evide nc e in the record sup p orted the B oard ’s deci si on a s t o each ofthes e pr ovi si ons.

1. Se cti on 3 15(b) st at es that the Board has the pow erto au th or ize a c on d itio n al u se p er m it s o lon g a s t h e c on d iti o na l us e “[ w]i l l b e des i g ne d, c o ns truct ed, op er at ed, a nd m ain ta in ed so as to be h ar m on iou s a n d ap p ro p ria te in appe ar an c e with the exi sting o r i ntended charact ero f24 N o. 07

- 3949 the g ener alvi ci ni ty and shall n ot change the e sse nti al chara ctero fthe sam e a re a. ” R. 1, Ex. B, at9. A l th ou gh loc al g ov er n m en t s are en tit led to w eig h th e a es th et ic effe c t o f a w ire les s t ow er in d e c id in g w h et h er to p er m it i ts const ructi on, ge nera l i zed ae sthet i c co ncer n s ar e no t alo n e s u fficie n t t o jus tify a d en ial of a p er m it. Pr i meCo , 35 2 F.3 d at11 50
. Se eal s o Voi ce St r e am , 34 2 F
. 3d at 831 ( because few peo p le w ou ld argu e tha t t e le c om m un ications tow ers ar e a es th et ica lly p lea sin g, a loca l zo n in g boa rd ’s a es th et ic j ud gm en t m us t be grou nd e d i n th e sp ecifi cs of the cas e). A bl anketo pp osi ti on t o pol es, f orexam ple , w ou l d not be suffi cient eviden ce for den ying th e con stru ction of a w ire les s fa c ility d isg u ise d as a p ole

. Id . A rea so n ab le deci si on wh etherto approv e a perm i t t o const ruct a cel l phone to w err equi re s the l oc al gov er nm ent t o ba l an ce the c o nt r ibut i o n the t o werwoul d m ake to the avai l abi l i ty ofcel l phone ser vi ce ag ai nst the detr i m ents the tower prese nts to the surr ound in g com m unity. Pr i meCo , 35 2 F. 3d at 1149

. The co m pla i nts m ade by local r es i den ts i n thi s ca se a r e r epr es en ta ti ve o fthe dow nsi des to w er s pre sent. They o ften a re per cei ved as unsi ghtl y a nd ar e bl am ed f orr educing prop er ty val ues. A l though the st atute pro hibi ts as a co n sidera ti on th e fe ar of ad ve rs e h ea lth eff e c t s o f ele c tr om ag n et ic r adi at i o n fr o m the t o wer s, a l o ca l g o ve r nm en t m ayco nsi dero th ers afety f ac to r s, s ucha s th e ha r m t o the e nv i r o nm ent, the obs tr ucti on o fvi si on, and th e ri sk ofa tower fallin g d u e t o w in d or ic e. Pr i meCo , 35 2 F
. 3d at 1149

. Bel l ag ai n p oi nts t o the e xperts’ o pini on that there was no l es s vi su al l y i nt r us i ve locati o n o n whi cht o pl ac e th e tower as an i nd i cati on that the Boar d ’s find i ngsN o. 07

- 3949 25 und erS ecti on 3 15(b) were not supp or ted bysubst anti al evi dence. Bel l di sco unts the photo si m ula ti ons presen ted by the Codys and otherr esi dents as “g ener al i zed” obj ecti o ns t o t o wer s. Be l l c o nduc te d a “ba l l o o n t es t” a t th e p ro p os ed sit e a n d p ro vid ed p h ot og ra p h s t o th e B oa rd . A l ar g e he l i um b al l o o n was fl o at ed to th e he i g hto fthe pr o po se d t o wera nd phot o g r aph s wer e ta k ena t va r i o us dist ances an d angl es. The Codys then used thos e photo

g r a ph s t o e xt r a po l a t e v i e ws o f the t o we r fr o m the i r prop er tya nd fr o m o th erne arbyr es i den ce s and farm s. The Codys prese nted these photo m ock

- up s to d em onst ra te to the Boa rd thatthe tower w as not harm oni ous in char acterto the surr ounding ar ea. M any of the ne arby hom eo wners als o wro te l et te r s to the Bo ar d pr o te st i ngthe im pact of such a str ucture on the scenery and o n th eir proper ty val ues. Bel l and the H el cher s pro vi ded photo s taken l ar gely fro m publi c r oads b ut the Codys and other ne arbyr es i den ts pr es en te d v i ews o fthe t o wera nd the bal l oo n tes t fro m f ar m s a nd r esi dences nea rby

. R. 23 , at 1465 , 14 91- 1495 , 15 01- 1563

. In the Codys’ alt er ed photo s, th e to werr i se s up l i k e a ni ne te en - st o ry M ar ti anmachine fr o m H. G. Wel l s ’ “ W a r o fthe W or l ds , ” ma r r i nga l a nd

scape of forest s a nd f ar m s. The to w eri s no t in any w ay di sgui se d t o r es embl e a m o r e pal at ab l e st r uctur e, b ut stan d s out alone as an i nd us trialblem ish o n an otherw i se bucol i c la n d sc ape. I t i s r em ar kabl y o ut o fsca l e t o any s urr ounding str uctures
. O fco urse , Bel l ar gues that th e he i g hti s ne ce ss ar y g i ve n the t o po g rap hy ofthe co unty, a nd a l so c ont en ds th atthe c o m pan y r edu ce d the he i g ht o f th e to wer as m uch as po ssible wi th o ut d eg ra d in g t h e s ign al.26 N o. 07

- 3949 The photog ra phic re prese ntati ons ofthe tow er as vi ewe d fr o m th e pr o per ty o f th e Cody s an d o th er ne i g hbor s, acc om panied b y the o bj ecti ons ofm any r esi dents w h o p u rc h as ed lan d an d bu ilt h om es in t h is a re a s p ec ifica l l y b e c a u s e o fth e n a t u r a l v i e ws , p r o v i d e d th e Zo ni ng Bo ar d wi ths ubs ta nt i ale vi den ce to r ej ec t th e per m i t as no nc onform ing w ith Section 31 5(b). Th e Zon ing B oard w ei ghed the v a l ue o fc l o s i nga s i g na l g a p f o r o ne wi re les s p ro vid er alon g a st re tc hof ro a d a g a i n st th e a es th et ic effect thi s t ower would have o n thi s l ar gel y r ural set ti ng an d fo und thatthi s t ower a t thi s l oca ti on was not harm oni ous with the appearance o r i nten ded char acte r ofthe ar ea. A s w e d isc us s below , Be llhad not sat isfied th e B oard that i t had adequately c onsi dered pl aci ng the t ower o n l an d z o ne d f o r manuf ac tu r i ng, b usi ne ss , o r f o r hi g hw ay i nter changes

. I t i s no t s urpris in g that a 19 0- f oo t i nd ustr i al

- l oo ki ng to w erwould not be harm oni ous with an ag ri cul tura l sett in g, an d that i s l i kel y o ne o fthe re as ons that the O rd inan ce insists th at w irel ess p rovide rs consi der s eve n othe r cate gor i es ofzo ned proper ty bef or e re sor ti ng to pla cem ent on agr i cul tura l l and . B ell co m par es th e Bo ar d’ s r ej ec ti o n o fthe pe r m i t to the ci ty ’ s r ej ec ti o n in Pr i meCo

. Buti n P r i me Co , the c i ti ze ns ob j ec te d to p lac em en t of a tow er d isg u ise d as a fl a g p ole in an area w he re i nd us trial ized l an d uses w ere per m i tt ed, a nd wher e th er e was no e vi den ce tha t th e hei ght o fthe pol e ( 70 feeti n that i nstanc e) was o ut o f cha ra cterf orthe ar ea. M or eov er, the ci ty had sugges ted i ns te ad di sgui singthe t o we r as a l i g htpo l e an d m o ving it t o a d iffer en t loc at ion, eve n th ou gh th er e w as n o e vi-N o. 07

- 3949 27

W e note thatthe H el ch ers ow n and operate a com m erc ial 5 stora g e b u ild ing on their p ro p erty , an d are a u tho rized to (co n tin u ed ...) den ce tha t a l i g htpo l e was any l es s uns i g ht l y tha n the p ro p os ed flag p ole an d n o e vid en c e t h at th e li gh t p ole w ou ld be les s v i s i b le th an th e fla g p ole

. Pr i meCo , 35 2 F. 3d at 1150

- 51. Th e c i r c ums t a nc e s h e r e mo r e c l o s e l y r e s e mbl e those of Voic e St r e am , wh e r e the l o c a l g o v e r nme ntde ni e d a perm i t t o bui l d a tower near a sceni c ri ver w ay. W e no ted that the c ounty’ s dete rm i nati on that the pro posed to w er woul d a dve r se l y a ffec t th e ae sthe ti c ha rm ony o fthe r i ve r waywas g r o unde d i n the s peci fi cs of the c as e an d w as n otba se d on co nj ec tu re or s p ec u lat ion
. R at h er it w as base d on an o n-s i te i nvest i gat i on a nd a m ap pr epa r ed fr o m the wi r el es s ca r r i er ’ s cr an e te st, do cum en tingho w vi sibl e the to werwoul d b e fr o m v ar i o us n ea rb y loc at ion s. VoiceSt r e am , 3 42 F
. 3d at8 32
. Pe r so ns who vi ewe d the c r an e te st, w hich w as s i m i l art o the ballo on test i n the i nstant case , te sti fi ed to the negat i ve i m pac t th e to werwoul d ha ve . Th is tes ti m o ny a nd the m ap prepar ed from t h e crane tes t pr ovi ded subst anti al ev i den ce t o s uppo r t th e co unty ’ s dec i si on to de ny the p e r m i t fo r th e t ow er . Id

. A l though the H el cher s’ pro perty is a d m itt ed ly n ot o n a N at ion al Sc en ic R ive rw ay , i t is in a p ictures qu e r u r a l area w he re a 190-foot structu re w oul d ri se hi gh ab ove the tr ee l i ne, co m ple tel y o ut o f ch aract er w ith an y othe r natu ral or m an -m ad e st r u c t u re i n the vi ci ni ty. W e co ncl ud e there f or e that s ubstanti al 528 N o. 07

- 3949

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 5 bu il d up to t we nty- t wo s t or a ge s pa c e s , e a c h e l e ve n fe e tby el eve n fee ti n s i ze . A r el at i vel y s m al l c om m er c i al s t or age bu il ding of l im it ed height is f ar l es s visible t o neighbors than a 190- f oot t ow er. ev i den ce s uppo r te d the B oar d’ s dec i si o n t o r ej ec t th e p er m it on t h is gr ou n d

. See Sprint P C S A ss ets, L.L. C
. v. C ity o f P a lo s Verd es E stat es , 5 83 F .3d 71 6, 72 6 ( 9th Ci r. 20 09) ( hol ding that a bo ar d’s deci si on t o rej ec t a perm i t o n ae s the t i c g r o un ds wa s s up po r t e d b y s ub s t a nt i a l e v i de nc e whe r e the e v i de nc e i nc l ud e d pr o pa g a t i o n map s , mo c k

- up s ofthe propos ed to w er, a re porto n the a estheti c va l ues at st ak e, pub l i c co m m en ta r y a nd a pr es en ta ti o n fr o m the w ire les s c ar rie r); P latt e C ounty, 5 78 F
. 3d at7 33 ( fi ndi ng that a v i si t t o the pr opose d tower s i te, an a er i alm ap i nd i cating sur ro und i ng hom es and the r esi de n tial chara ctero fthe a re a, l ett er s fro m thr ee nearby re si dents, and si m ula ted pi cture s o fthe propos ed 15 3-f oo t t ower supp l i ed substa nti alev i d en ce t o supp or t a deci si on rej ec tin g a to w er for a es th et ic re as on s); T-M obil e U SA , Inc. v. C ityof A na co rtes , 57 2 F
. 3d 987, 99 4 ( 9th C ir. 2 009) ( obj ect ions by re si dents thata m onopol e would have a detri m entali m pact o n surr ounding re si denti alpro perty, th atthe pol e woul d no t be c o m pl et ely s cr ee ne d, a nd that i t would int er fer e with sce ni c vi ew s pro vi ded subst an tia l ev id en c e s u p p or tin g a d e n i a l o f a p er m it t o b u ild th e po le) ; O m nipoi nt, 43 0 F
. 3d at 534 ( hold i ng tha t a loc a l z on in g b oa rd h as d isc re tio n to rely onth e a es th et ic obj ecti ons ra i sed bynei gh bor s who know the l oca l terr ain and the si ght l i nes o fthei r own hom es, and m ayN o. 07

- 3949 29

rej ect aes theti c o pini ons ofexper ts w hose s tu dy i ncl ud ed onl y v i ew s fro m publi c ar eas and not fro m r esi de n ts’ p rop erty).

2. S ec ti o n 3 15 ( d) s i m i l ar l y e m po wer s th e B o ar d t o i ss ue a c o nd i t i o na l u s e p e r mi ti fthe u se “[ w] i l l n o ti mpe de th e no r m ala nd o r der l y de ve l o pm enta nd i m pr o ve m en t o fthe s ur r o undi ngpr o per tyf o r us es perm i tt ed i n the dist ri ct. ” R. 1, Ex . B , a t 9
. The Codys t est i fi ed that they hal ted co nstr ucti on o n an addit ion to thei r hom e when they l ear ned that t h e tower m i ght b e bui l t nea rby

. A r eal est ate apprai serte sti fi ed that the t ower would ha ve a detri m entaleffect on l and val ues, al though he coul d not offe r a n y sp ecifi c m easu re of th e pre d icted dow nw ard t r e n d

. T h i s i s th e th i n n e s t p a r t o f th e c o u n t y ’ s ca se , a nd thi s f acto r al one m ay not have provi ded subst an tial evi dence f orthe deci si on t o deny the perm i t. W e nee d not deci de w hat would be needed to m eetthe substa nti al evi dence st andard i n thi s instance , tho ugh, bec ause t he c o u n t y ’ s c o n c l u s i o n th a tth e t o we r w o u l d b e i n c o mpatibl e with the app earance and charac tero fthe ar ea and i ts concl usi on that the pl ai nti ff s had f ai l ed to adequ a t e l y i nv est i ga t e o the r k i nd s o fz o ne d l a nd we r e s up port ed by substa nti alev i dence.

3. S e c t i o n 1 5 1 4 ( 5 ) p r o v i de s tha tthe Co un t y ma y di s a pprove an a pp l i cati on that, am ong othe r thi ngs, “[ c] onfl i cts30 N o. 07

- 3949

The appl i c at i on c ons id ers ea c h pos s ibl e c o- l oc at i on s i t e and 6 ex pl ai ns why i ti s i nade qua t e to provi de c ove ra ge f or J am i s on (co n tin u ed ...) w i th the pro vi si ons ofthi s Ordi nan c e.” R

. 23 , Ex. 2, at 1 0 3 3
. S e c t i o n 1 5 1 4 s up pl i e s a l i s t o f nine c a t e g o r i es of p ro p er ty on w h ich w ire les s tr an sm itt er s m ay be p lac ed , in the o rdero fthe County’ s prefer ence. The County pr efer s, in o r d e r from m ost to least favored , that trans m itters be pl ac ed ( 1) o n e xi sti ng t o wer s o r s tructur es wi th o ut i ncre asi ng the exi sting he i ght o ftho se towers o r str ucture s; ( 2) o n proper ty zon ed M anufa cturing Three ; ( 3) on pro pertyzo n ed M anufa cturing Tw o; ( 4) o n proper ty zoned M anufa cturing One; ( 5) on p roperty z oned H i ghw ay I nter change; (6) o n proper ty zoned Gener al Bu si ness; ( 7) o n proper ty zoned Rest ricte d Busi ness; ( 8) o n proper ty zoned Agri cul tura l ; an d (9) o n proper ty zoned Resi denti al

. R. 23 , Ex. 2, at10 32. The H el cher s’ proper ty w as zoned Agri cul tura l, se cond to the l as t o n th e Cou nty ’ s l i sto fpr efer en ce s. Onl y residenti alne i g hbo r ho o d pl ac ementi s m o r e o ffen si ve t o the Co unty’s state d values th an the location selecte d b y t he plaintiff s here

. S ecti on 1 514 re quir es appli cants see kin g t o pla ce towers o n l ower pri or i ty l an d (s u ch as A gr i cul tura l lan d) t o subm i t a detai l ed expla nati on a s t o w hy a hi gher pri or i ty si te w as not sel ecte d. R. 23 , Ex. 2, at10 32- 33. A l tho ugh Be l l a r g uab l y h a s e xp l a i ne d wh y c o - l o c a t i on w as not possibl e in th is instance , the com pany has not provi ded a detai l ed expla nati on re gar ding l and categ or i es ( 2) thro ug h ( 7) abo ve . As the di st r i ctc o ur t no te d, the 6N o. 07

- 3949 31

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 6 R oa d

. T he B oa rd rejected the a p p lication , in p art, be cau se Be l l f a i l e d t o s ho w tha ts ix otherpreferre d categori es ofzoned pr op e r t y c ou l d n otbe us e d. pla i nti ff s di d not e xplain w hy a tr ansm i tter coul d not be c o n s t r u c t e d o n p r o p e r t y z o n e d Ma n u f a c t u r i n g O n e , T wo orThree ; H i ghw ay I nter change; General B usi ness or R es t r i c te d B u sin es s. In st ea d , th e p lain tiffs sim p ly re ci ted bo i l er pla te cl ai m s in thei r appli cati on for ea ch ofthes e pr efer re d categ or i es ofzo ned proper ty: W i thi n ori n re aso nabl e pr oxi m i ty ofthe sea rch ar ea wh e r e n e w a n t e n n a e i s [ s i c ] r e q u i r e d t o p r o v i de co m pl et e and c o m pet i ti ve c o ve r ag e th er e ex i st s no p rop erty zon ed [ zon ing d esigna tions (2) th roug h (7)] that acco m m odates the RF engi neer i ng r equi re m ents o f th e prop osed Cin cinn ati Bell W irel ess n etw ork ex pan si o n. R. 23 , Ex. 10 , at13 09- 10. A s the di str i ct c ourtnot ed, thes e “ge neri c, nonspeci fi c st ate m ents ar e unsupp or ted by any e xplanat i on, ev i dence ofinv es ti gat i on, o r othe r descri pti on ind icati ng tha t cr edence i s t o be g ra nted to P lain tiffs ’ cla im s t h at all ot h er sit es w er e a d eq u at ely i nvest i gat ed. ” Helch er, 50 0 F
. Supp.2d a t 1 117. Be l l a nd the He l c he r s c o nt i nu e t o r e l y o n the s e u ns up port ed st ate m ents on a pp eal

. Bel l char acte ri zes i ts concl usor y s tat em ents as “uncon tr adic ted ev i dence” that Bel l “h as i nv es ti g at ed al l fea sibl e al te r na te l o ca ti o ns , ” an d fau lts th e B oa rd for fa ilin g t o offe r alt e rn at e s ite s. A p p ell a nt ’ s Br i e fa t2 1

. T hi s i s n o thing m or e tha n a n a t t e mpt32 N o. 07

- 3949
to r ev er se the b ur deno ffi ndi nga l te r na te site s o nt o the Zoni ng Boar d and it s o ffi cer s, a burden the Or dinance pla ces squarely on the appli cant fora condi ti onaluse per m i t. Be l l a l so a r g ue s th atth e d i st r i ctc o ur t an d the Zo ning Bo a r d i g no r e d the nu mer o us pr o pa g a t i o n m aps and RF d at a p ro vi ded byBel l, co ntending that these do c um ents i denti fi ed the ar ea i n w hi ch the tower m ust be pl aced to pro vi de adequate c ove ra ge. A c c ording to Bel l, the Boa rd’ s ex per ts kne w f r o m tho se maps an d do cument s whi chl ocati o ns s ho ul d b e i nv es ti g at ed, a nd ne itherthe Board northe cour t had the exper ti se r equi r ed to e va l ua te the maps an d da ta
. At the Zo ni ng B oa rd m ee ti n g, a B ell re p re se n ta tiv e a d d re ss in g t h is ques ti o n o ffer ed th e f o l l o wi ngt es ti m o ny t o s uppo r t th e com pany’s co m pli ance w i th S ecti on 1 514: T h e o th e r a r e a w i th wh i c h t o r e v i e w a w i r e l e s s c o mm u n ica tio n s t ow er req u es t is you r c h ec k listof ce rt ain zoni ng cl ass i fi cati ons. Ratherthan going thr ough th at lon g p ro c es s o f ex p lain in g a ll th a t, I w ill sim p ly re ferto Tab 1 3 that we subm i tte d, and al so re i ter ate the f act that Cinci nnatiBel l W i re l ess would not be here unle ss ther e w as a defini te need f or th is fa ci l i ty to b e l ocat ed here. W e take every an gle and every av en ue t o c o - l o ca te o n e xi st i ngs truc tu r es o fhe i g ht w he th er i t be w ater tow er, exi s t in g celltow er, r o o fto ps, what ev er . I f w e ca n ut i l i ze a nd e nha nc e o ur ne two r kb y no t ha vingt o g o through a l o ngz o ni ng proc es s, w e’ re go i ng to go thr ough that pr oce ss bec au se it’ s a ll ab ou t s er vic in g t h e c u st om er , bec au se it i s a custo m er -base d busi ness. S o, Iwould j ust r eferto c ha pte r

— S ec ti o n 1 3 th atwe su bmi tt ed i n wr i tingN o. 07

- 3949 33 and ask that you l i st that as th e fin d i ngs e stabl i shed w i th A rt i cl e 1 5, S ecti on 1 514. R. 2 3, Ex. 2 9, a t 1721 , Tr
. a t 58
. Tab 1 3 is sim pl y the do cum en t co nt aini ngthe c o nc l us o r y st atement s th atno l a n d z o n e d i n th e p r e fe r r e d c a t e g o r i e s w o u l d a c c o mm od at e t h e e n gin ee r in g n ee d s o f th e p ro p os ed to w er . In that docum ent a nd in otherd ocum ents, B el l m ade a goo d case f orr uling o ut co-loc ati on o n exi sting to w er s o r st ru c tu re s, b u t B ell h as ye t t o p o i n tt o a n yt h in g s p ec ific showing the com pany eve n consi dered m uch l ess r ule d out l and i n the othe r cate gor i es. W i thout poi nti ng to zoni ng m ap s o r an o ver l ay ofzo ni ng m aps and propag ati on m aps, f orexam ple , the com p an y e sse nti al l y a rgues, “Trust us; we l oo ked

. ” Bel l ’ s a rgum ent a m ounts to a cl ai m thatthe Boa rd a n d the dis tr i ct c ourtwere re quir ed to rubbe r- sta m p the e xperts’ co nclu sor y s tat em ents that no l an d zoned i n the othe r si x cate gor i es w oul d have satisfi ed the tec hn ical sp ecifi cation s. N either th e B oard no r the c o ur t wer e r equi r ed to a cc ept uns uppo r te d o pi ni ons. Giv en that t h e onl y “ evi dence” that Bel l sa ti sfi ed S e c t i o n 1 5 1 4 c o n s i s t s o fB e l l ’ s c o n c l u s o r y s t a t e me nt s, we c on c lu d e t h at th e B oa rd ’s d ec isio n reje c t i n g th e p er m it f ornon c om pli ance with Se cti on 1 514 i s s up port ed by substa nti alev i dence.

C. Bel l c on tend s that the Boar d’s rej ecti on o fi ts appli cati on e ffecti vel y pr ohibi ts B ell f ro m pro vi ding w i re l ess co m m uni ca ti o ns s er vi ce s. Be l l a l so a r g ue s th atthe Board’ s deni alunrea sonab l y di scr i m i nates between w i re -34 N o. 07

- 3949 l es s pr o vi der s. Nei th erofthe se ar g um en ts has mer i t. Our re vi ew o fthe prohibi ti on- of

- ser vi ce c l ai m i s de novo

. Voic e St r e am , 3 42 F
. 3d a t 8 33 ( whethe r a pa r ti cul arz o ni ng deci si on vi ol ate s the A ct’ s a nti

- p ro h ibi ti on cl ause i s a que st i o n tha t a d is tr i ctc o ur t det er m i ne s wi th o ut defe re nce t o the l oca l zo ni ng bo ar d, an d an appel l ate c ou rt ’s re vie w of a gr an t o f su m m ar y jud gm en t o n th is i ssue i s deno vo ). W e c on sid er ed th e m ea n i n g o fth e a n tipr o hibi ti o n clause i n Voic e St r e am and concl ud ed that “so long as th e service p rovide r has n ot invest ig a t e d thoro ug hl y the po ss ibi l i tyo fo th erv i ab l e al te r nati ve s, the denia l o fan ind i vi du alper m i t doe s no t ‘ prohibito r have the e ffect ofpro h ibi ti ng the pro vi si on o fper sonal w i re l ess se rv i ces. ’ 47U
. S.C. § 3 32( c) ( 7) ( B)( i ) ( I I )

. ” V o iceSt r e am , 3 42 F
. 3d at8 34

- 35
. In Vo i c e St r e am , we j o i ne d the Fi rs t Ci rcui t in hol ding that a pro vi der c ar ri es a hea vy burden ofdem onst ra ti ng notj ust th at the appli cati on ha s been rej ecte d bu t tha t furth er reason able eff orts are so l i kel y t o b e fru itle ss that i t i s a waste o fti m e e ven t o tr y. Voic e St r e am , 34 2 F
. 3d at 834 ( ci t i ng Se co nd Generat i on Prop s ., L. P. v. Town of Pe l ham , 313 F.3d 620 , 629 (1st C ir. 2002 ) )

. “U nd er thi s sta nd ar d, the provi der m u st show th at i ts ‘ ex i st i ng appl i ca ti o n i s th e o nl y fea sible p l an ’ an d tha t ‘ th er e ar e no o th erpo te nt i als o lut i o ns t o the pu rpor ted pro bl em . ’ ” Voic e St r e am , 3 42 F. 3d at8 34 ( ci ting Tow n o f Pe l ham , 31 3 F
. 3d at 630, 63 5)

. A s w e noted abo ve, Bel l di d not dem onst ra te to the Boa rd’ s s ati sf acti on th at it h ad inv es tig at ed n oton ly c o - l o c at ion bu t a lso six othe r cate gor i es ofzo ned l and b ef or e a pp l yi ng to pl ace the t ow er o n the H el cher s’ ag ri cul tura l pro perty
. That f ai l ur e to s ati sfy S ec ti o n 1 51 4 o fthe Or di na nc e demon-N o. 07

- 3949 35
str ate d that the appli cants did notm eetthe st andard set un d er Voic e St r e am f o r a p r o h ib i t i o n - o f

- s e r v i c e c l a i m. Finally, Be ll ha s fai led to d em ons trate th at th e B oard unr ea so nabl y di sc r i m i na te d a m o ngpr o vi der s byde ny i ng the per m i t. The A ct pr ovi des: The r egul at i o n o fthe pl ac ement, c o ns truct i o n, a nd m odi fi cati on o fper sonalwir eless s er vi ce f aci l i ti es by any S tat e o r l oca l go ve rnm ent o r i nstr um ental i ty ther eof

. . . shal l notunrea sonab l y di scr i m i nate am on g p ro vid er s of fu n c tio n ally e qu iva len t s er vic es [.] 47U .S.C . § 33 2(c )(7) ( B ). W e h av e y et to ad d re ss w h at is ne ede d t o make o uta c l ai m under thi s pr o vi si o n o fthe A c t. Bel l co ntends thatthe Board’ s deni alo fi ts perm it appli cati on l eft Bel l unab l e t o provi de vi abl e co m peti ti on to othe r car ri er s in Dearbo rn County. But Bel l has not al l eg ed , m uchl es s pr es en te d e vi den ce , tha t th e Zo ni ng B oa rd tre at e d an y ot h er ca rrie r m or e fa vo ra b ly. T h er e is no allegation, for ex am p le, t ha t othe r carriers w ere allo w ed to co n st ru c t t ow er s o n lan d zo n ed ag ric u ltu ra l. T he only eviden ce in th e record regard ing the Boa rd ’s tr ea tmentof o th erc ar r i er s i s th e undi spu te d s ta te m en t fro m the Board ’s exp er t, Ebel har, thatev er y o thercar ri er that appli ed f or a perm i t to bui l d a new w i re l ess to w er i n Dearbo rn C ou n ty since the Ordinance w ent into effect ha d b ee n r equi r ed to c o - l o ca te o n a n al r ea dy ex i st i ng tower. R. 23 , Ex. 29 , at17 18, Tr. at 4 6. It i s di ffi cul t t o see h ow Be llca n m a k e a clai m that thes e othe r carriers w er e t re ate d m or e f av orabl y when none had bee n al l o we d t o b u i l d a n e w t o we r s i n c e th e i n c e p t i o n o ft he Ordinance.36 N o. 07

- 3949 C ou rts interp reting th is provision r e q uire the plaintiff to dem onst ra te that the c ar ri er s a re functi onal l y e quiva

l ent, thatth e local go ver nm ent t re ate d anothercar ri er m o r e f av o r ab l y, a nd a l so tha t th e f av o rabl e tr ea tment w as u n re as on ab le. See O gd en Fi re C o . N o . 1 v. Upp er Chiche s t e rTwp. , 50 4 F

. 3d 37 0, 39 2 ( 3d Cir

. 20 07) ( re quir i ng co m pla i ni ng wir el ess carr i er s to dem onst ra te that anothe r car ri erpro vi des functi onal l y e quiva l ent s er vi ces, and that the o thercar ri eri s s i m i lar ly situat ed, i
. e. , that th e st r uctur e, pl ac emento r c um ul at i ve i m pact of the exi sting f aci l i ti es m ake s them as o r m or e in tr u si ve than th e p r o p o s ed fac ility ); SprintSpect rum L. P
. v. Wil loth , 17 6 F. 3d 630, 63 8- 39 ( 2d Cir

. 19 99) ( hol ding th at the Act conte m pla tes that s o me d iscrim ination be tw een prov iders is a llow ed so lon g a s itis re as on ab le); Virginia Beach , 155 F. 3d at 426- 28 ( fi nd i ng tha t the A ct c onte m pla tes so m e d isc rim in at ion am on g p ro vid er s b u t p ro h ibi t s o n ly u n re aso nabl e di scr i m i nati on)

. Dis cri m i nati on ba sed o n aes theti cs a nd com patibi l i ty w i th the ch ar acte r ofthe ar ea h as be en h eld rea so n ab le. Wil loth , 176 F.3d at63 9; Virginia B each , 15 5 F
. 3d at 427

. Bel l has not i denti fi ed any othe r c ar rie r to u se as a c om p ar at or m u c h les s a fu n c tio n ally equi val ent o n e. N orhas Bel l dem onst ra ted thati t was tr ea te d l es s f av o r ab l y no r tha t an y di fferi ng t r ea tment w as u n reaso nabl e. U nd erany f or m ula ti on o fthe sta tute, Bel l ’ s cl ai m o funr ea so nabl e di sc r i m i na ti o n f ai l s. The di st r i ctc o ur t co r r ec tly e nt er ed j udg m en t i n f avoro fthe Z o n i n gB o a r d a n d i t s me mb e r s o n th i s c l a i m. A FFI RMED .
2- 9- 10