Sprint Spectrum alleged that the County’s denial of a special use permit to construct a telecommunications tower violated the Telecommunications Act asserting that the denial was not in writing and that it was not supported by substantial evidence. The Company sought to construct the tower on a parcel just over 7 acres that was owned by a Church in an agricultural district that was adjacent to a residential area. Telecommunications facilities are permitted in the zoning district subject to a special use permit. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment for the County, finding that the County’s denial of cell phone company’s application for permit to construct tower did not violate the Telecommunications Act, as it was “in writing” and “supported by substantial evidence.” In denying the permit, the Commission issued a four-page document entitled “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Special Use Permit.” The County offered four reasons for the denial. The 8th Circuit noted that it had not yet had occasion to rule on what constituted the “in writing” requirement of the Telecommunications Act, but observed that a majority of other circuits that had ruled on this held that a written denial must contain a sufficient explanation to support the denial. Here, the Court said that the County’s finding that the tower would “dominate the immediate neighborhood so as to prevent development and use of neighboring property” sufficed to permit meaningful judicial review of whether substantial evidence supports the decision. Further, the Court noted that aesthetic concerns can be a valid basis for denial so long as they are “grounded in the specifics of the case” and not based on generalized aesthetic concerns.
Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Platte County, 2009 WL (8th Cir. (MO) 8/6/2009).
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opns/opFrame.html
