Opinion ID: 3010911
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Local Zoning Authority

Text: The Telecommunications Act expressly preserves local zoning authority over the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities. See 47 U.S.C. S 332(c)(7)(A). Nevertheless, the statute subjects the exercise of local zoning authority1 to six limitations. First, _________________________________________________________________ 1. The statute actually preserves the zoning authority of the states, local governments and instrumentalities thereof. We refer exclusively to local zoning authority for simplicity's sake only. 5 local regulation may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent wireless services. See id. S 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I). Second, local regulation may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. See id. S 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). Third, local regulators must act on placement, construction and modification applications within a reasonable period of time. See id. S 332(c)(7)(B)(ii). Fourth, all decisions denying a request to place, construct or modify a personal wireless services facility must be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. See id. S 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). Fifth, any person adversely affected by local regulators' final action on a placement, construction, or modification application may seek judicial review in any court of competent jurisdiction. See id. S 332(c)(7)(B)(v). Finally, the statute substantially limits the authority of local officials to regulate personal wireless facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions. See id. S 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). In the course of its long deliberations over the applications at issue, the Board received testimony and other evidence from both the providers and their opponents concerning the quality of existing personal wireless services in Ho-Ho-Kus. A radio frequency engineer for AT&T testified that there were various areas within the Borough where the quality of service was very poor, and other areas where the odds of actually being able to place or receive a call were so low as to render them essentially no service areas. See Transcript: March 9, 1995 Ho-Ho-Kus Board of Adjustment Hearing at 124-26, reprinted in Appellant's Brief app. at A438-40. Similarly, a radio frequency engineer for Bell Atlantic testified that his company's cellular service in the area was marginal at best, and generally unreliable. See Transcript: April 13, 1995 Ho-Ho-Kus Board of Adjustment Hearing at 109-11, reprinted in Appellant's Brief app. at A741-43. A Nextel engineer described his company's mobile radio service in the Borough as almost non-existent. See id. at 169, reprinted in Appellant's Brief app. at A801. In response, two Ho-Ho-Kus residents presented tape recordings they had made of twelve cellular telephone calls placed from various locations within the Borough. The 6 recordings apparently demonstrated relatively good connection and transmission quality with respect to the twelve calls recorded, and the Board accepted them as competent evidence that existing wireless service as a whole was adequate. See Resolution: Zoning Board of Adjustment, Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus, June 5, 1997 at 13, reprinted in Appellant's Brief app. at A153; see also, Transcript: May 23, 1996 Ho-Ho-Kus Board of Adjustment Hearing at 5989, reprinted in Appellant's Brief app. at A1907-37. The providers challenged the evidentiary value of the tape recordings and pointed out that while the residents placed twelve calls, AT&T's tests included calls from approximately 2,500 locations within the borough. Because AT&T conducted five such tests, the total data apparently included at least 12,500 calls. Underscoring further this dramatic difference in the sample size, the providers point out that of the residents' twelve calls, only two calls were placed from the worst service areas. The residents also made the calls in April when few trees had foliage, a significant source of interference; they called while stationary, again avoiding sources of interference; and all of their calls were made on a Saturday when demand was low, yet another variable affecting call performance. Finally, the residents only recorded the uplink, which is picked up by the more sensitive receiver at a cellular facility and transmitted to a land-line phone. They did not record the more problematic downlink that a cellular phone receives from its much less sensitive antenna. Evidence produced from the providers' own test calls indicated that most suffered from some form of technical difficulty. After weighing the conflicting evidence, the Board concluded that the quality of existing cellular service within the Borough and surrounding area was sufficient, and that there was therefore no legitimate need for the proposed monopole. See Resolution of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus, June 27, 1997 at 25, reprinted in Appellant's Brief app. at A165. The providers argue, however, that local authorities are barred from considering quality of service issues when determining whether and where to permit wireless communication facilities within their jurisdictions. They contend that the 7 comprehensive body of federal law regulating the telecommunications industry effectively, if not expressly, preempts local authorities from regulating the quality of personal wireless services. They further contend that because judging the quality of wireless services does not concern the physical location and construction of cellular facilities, it is not a legitimate exercise of zoning power, but rather an unlawful intrusion upon the Federal Communications Commission's exclusive regulatory authority. As an initial matter, we reject the proposition that local zoning authorities are wholly barred from considering the quality of existing personal wireless service. Obviously, local officials must, at a minimum, consider whether wireless service currently exists within their jurisdictions if they are to determine whether rejecting a proposed wireless communications facility would have the effect of prohibiting such service. The providers contend, however, that allowing local officials to go beyond this threshold consideration, and to reject wireless communication facilities based on their own evaluation of existing service, would undermine the Telecommunications Act's twin goals of encouraging rapid deployment of new technologies and providing nationwide seamless cellular service to the public. Contrary to the providers' arguments, we conclude that barring all local quality-of-service considerations could just as easily undermine the Telecommunications Act's goals as further them. Decisions to grant or deny variances from local zoning ordinances generally require local officials to balance the interests that will be affected by the decision. Indeed, New Jersey law specifically mandates such a balancing approach. Obviously, one of the interests affected by a decision to grant or deny a variance necessary to construct a wireless communications facility is the quality of existing wireless services. A finding that existing service is relatively poor could tip the scale in favor of granting a variance that, absent consideration of current quality, might otherwise be denied. In so holding, we do not suggest that the discretion of local officials is unlimited. The Telecommunications Act imposes a number of explicit restrictions on the exercise of 8 local zoning authority. For instance, determinations concerning the quality of existing service must be based on substantial, competent evidence and remain subject to judicial review. Additionally, although the Telecommunications Act does not divest local officials of any authority they may have to consider the quality of existing wireless services, neither does it create such authority. Efforts to assess existing quality, and to weigh the benefits of enhancing it against the possible costs, must be authorized by and performed within the parameters of governing state and local law. Finally, as the Telecommunications Act itself dictates, local officials must always ensure that neither their general policies nor their individual decisions prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting personal wireless services. We interpret this mandate to mean more than simply ensuring that personal wireless services are available somewhere within the relevant jurisdiction, even if they are not available throughout. Thus, we conclude, as did the court in Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 643 (2d Cir. 1999), that local zoning policies and decisions have the effect of prohibiting wireless communication services if they result in significant gaps in the availability of wireless services. Building on the Willoth court's analysis, we conclude that there is a gap in personal wireless services when a remote user of those services is unable either to connect with the land-based national telephone network, or to maintain a connection capable of supporting a reasonably uninterrupted communication. See id. at 641-43. We do not attempt here to define what constitutes a significant gap in local wireless services.2 Rather, we will leave it for the _________________________________________________________________ 2. There may be any number of factors that a reviewing court may find it necessary to consider when determining whether a significant gap exists, and we make no attempt to enumerate them here. We think it matters a great deal, however, whether the gap in service merely covers a small residential cul-de-sac or whether it straddles a significant commuter highway or commuter railway. Unlike a utility such as electrical power, cellular service is used in transit, so a gap that covers a well-traveled road could affect large numbers of travelers--and the people who are trying to communicate with them. Over the course of a year, the total disruption caused could be quite significant. Here the 9 district court to determine, if necessary, whether there is a significant gap in service and, if so, whether there are any less intrusive means for closing that gap.