T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, Georgia

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2013 · Administrative Law

731 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2013)

Updated July 19, 2026

adminTelecommunications Actlocal government permittingTelecommunications Act of 199647 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii)in writing requirementcell tower permit denialwritten record

Facts

T-Mobile applied to build a 108-foot monopine cell tower on residentially zoned property in Roswell. After a public hearing at which city staff recommended approval with conditions, residents opposed the project and Councilmember Dr. Betty Price moved to deny the application, giving reasons tied to aesthetic incompatibility, tower height relative to surrounding trees, and proximity to residential structures. The City then sent T-Mobile a short written letter stating that the application had been denied and advising that hearing minutes could be obtained from the city clerk. The hearing was also transcribed, and the transcript was available before T-Mobile's 30-day deadline to sue expired.

Issue

Whether the City of Roswell complied with the Telecommunications Act's requirement that any decision denying a request to place or construct personal wireless service facilities "shall be in writing" when it sent a brief denial letter but the reasons for denial appeared in the hearing minutes and transcript.

Rule

The "in writing" requirement of 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) is given its plain meaning. The statute does not require the denial to be contained in a separate writing or in a single document that itself sets out all grounds, reasons, or explanations; if reasons must be included, it is sufficient that they appear in different written documents available to the applicant, and all such writings are considered collectively.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Pioneer Wireless applied to build a personal wireless service tower in Savannah, Georgia. The city council voted at a public hearing to deny the permit, then sent Pioneer a one-paragraph letter stating only that the application was denied; however, detailed hearing minutes and a verbatim transcript, both available to Pioneer within the 30-day suit period, set out the motion to deny and the reasons stated at the hearing.

Under the governing rule, did the city satisfy the statutory requirement that a denial decision be "in writing"?

Explanation. Yes. The rule is that the statute requires the denial decision to be in writing, but it does not require a separate writing or a single document containing all grounds or explanations. Written materials available to the applicant, including a denial letter, minutes, and transcript, are considered collectively. Because those writings together reflected the denial and the reasons before the filing deadline, the requirement is satisfied. (Derived from T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, Georgia (2013).)