T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, Georgia, 731 F.3d 1213

Roswell enacted an ordinance governing wireless tower siting, with criteria including proximity to residences, height, adjacent uses, topography, design, ingress/egress, existing structures, need, and Master Siting Plan.
T-Mobile applied on February 2, 2010 to construct a 108-foot monopine tower on 2.8 acres in a single-family residential zone, proposing an alternative design.
Planning Department recommended approval with conditions: relocate toward the west property line, install a black vinyl fence, and plant evergreen screening trees.
A public hearing was held on April 12, 2010; testimony and minutes reflect opposition and Council discussion; Council denied the application unanimously based on Councilmember Price’s motion.
Townsend notified T-Mobile by letter of denial on April 14, 2010; T-Mobile then sued in district court alleging violation of the Telecommunications Act and seeking a permit order.
The district court granted summary judgment for T-Mobile on the “in writing” requirement, but the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded, guided by City of Milton’s framework.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial complied with the in writing requirement	T-Mobile contends the decision lacked a single written decision with grounds.	Roswell argues the written record (letter, minutes, transcript) suffices under Milton.	Yes; collectively sufficient to satisfy in writing requirement.

New Par v. City of Saginaw, 301 F.3d 390 (6th Cir. 2002) (written denial must be describable against the record with sufficient explanation)
Sw. Bell Mobile Sys., Inc. v. Todd, 244 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. 2001) (written denial must be separate and explain the grounds to review the record)
MetroPCS, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2005) (written denial required with sufficient explanation in writing to review the record)