Opinion ID: 778879
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: In Writing Requirement

Text: 18 New Par argues that the Board's denial of its variance request violated 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) because the denial was not in writing for the purposes of the Act. The district court described the Board's decision in this case as follows: 19 In the instant case, the zoning board of appeals did not issue written reasons for its decision. It did, however, issue an order summarizing the request, the decision, and the votes of individual board members. The order does state that the denial was [b]ased on the facts presented and the Board's determination, both of which will appear in the minutes of this meeting. 20 Joint Appendix (J.A.) at 248 (Op. and Order) (emphasis in original omitted); see also J.A. at 137 (Bd.Order). The district court then concluded, after reviewing some of the case law from other district courts, that the Board's denial satisfied the in writing requirement. We have not defined the in writing requirement of the Act in this circuit, and we recognize that other courts have differed in their interpretations of the requirement. We now, however, adopt a definition of the in writing requirement similar to the definition adopted by the First Circuit, and we conclude that, under this definition, the Board's denial of New Par's variance request was not in writing for the purposes of the Act. 21 Courts have varied considerably in their interpretations of the in writing requirement of 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). On one end of the spectrum are a few district court cases that interpret the Act's in writing requirement to require decisions setting forth the reasons for the decision and linking the reasons to record evidence. See, e.g., Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n, 83 F.Supp.2d 306, 309 (D.Conn.2000). On the other end of the spectrum, the Fourth Circuit has held that the stamping of denied on a zoning application satisfied the in writing requirement: the City Council's decision was clearly `in writing,' and the district court could only find to the contrary by importing additional language into the statute. AT & T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City Council, 155 F.3d 423, 429 (4th Cir.1998); see also AT & T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. Winston-Salem Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 172 F.3d 307, 312-13 (4th Cir. 1999). In a recent opinion, the First Circuit carefully evaluated the opposing precedents and took a middle position, concluding: 22 [The Act] requires local boards to issue a written denial separate from the written record. That written denial must contain a sufficient explanation of the reasons for the permit denial to allow a reviewing court to evaluate the evidence in the record supporting those reasons. 23 Southwestern Bell Mobile Sys., Inc. v. Todd, 244 F.3d 51, 60 (1st Cir.2001). The Todd court explained that [t]he requirement of formal findings of fact and conclusions of law has no basis in the language of the Act.... On the other hand, permitting local boards to issue written denials that give no reasons for a decision would frustrate meaningful judicial review, even where the written record may offer some guidance as to the board's rationale. Id. at 59-60. 24 We find the reasoning of the Todd court persuasive. We hold that for a decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof denying a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities to be in writing for the purposes of 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii), it must (1) be separate from the written record; (2) describe the reasons for the denial; and (3) contain a sufficient explanation of the reasons for the denial to allow a reviewing court to evaluate the evidence in the record that supports those reasons. In this case, the Board's order denying New Par's variance request was separate from the written record, but it did not contain any explanation of the reasons for the denial. The order simply stated that [b]ased on the facts presented and the Board's determination, both of which will appear in the minutes of this meeting, it is ordered that [New Par's variance request] is hereby ... Denied. J.A. at 137 (Bd.Order). Therefore, we conclude that the Board's order was not in writing for the purposes of the Act.