Opinion ID: 171429
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Absence of Support in Local Law for the Failure to Show Prohibition of Personal Wireless Services Criterion

Text: The first reason, set forth in Paragraph 1 of the written denial, that the Board asserted to support its decision was that T-Mobile had failed to show that the denial of the Special Use Permit [would] prohibit the provision of personal wireless services. However, the Board erred in requiring T-Mobile to demonstrate that denying the application would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless services. No such criterion appeared in the Code at the time of T-Mobile's application. While the Code provided that approval or denial of Special Use Permits should be based upon consideration of certain factors enumerated in Section 27-279(f)(5) and set forth specific minimum criteria for telecommunication facilities in Section 27-1252(a)(32), it did not require telecommunication providers to demonstrate prohibition of personal wireless services. By inventing a criterion for which the applicable local ordinances did not provide, the Board failed to act on the basis of substantial evidence. In order [to] be supported by substantial evidence, the proffered reasons must comport with the objective criteria in existence (i.e. zoning regulations, permit application policies, etc.). Governing bodies cannot simply arbitrarily invent new criteria in order to reject an application. Virginia Metronet, Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors of James City County., Va., 984 F.Supp. 966, 974 n. 14 (E.D.Va.1998); see New Par v. City of Saginaw, 301 F.3d 390, 398 (6th Cir.2002) (concluding that the zoning board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence because, among other reasons, the applicant's failure to show lack of alternatives did not go to any of the criteria set out in the Zoning Code); Town of Amherst, N.H. v. Omnipoint Commc'ns Enters., Inc., 173 F.3d 9, 14 (1st Cir.1999) (stating that the substantial evidence standard surely refers to the need for substantial evidence under the criteria laid down by the zoning law itself) (emphasis omitted); AT & T Wireless Servs. of Cal., LLC v. City of Carlsbad, 308 F.Supp.2d 1148, 1163-64 (S.D.Cal.2003). Indeed, we have clearly stated that we must look to the requirements set forth in the local zoning ordinance to ascertain the substantive criteria to be applied. Broken Arrow, 340 F.3d at 1133. Although the TCA does not divest local officials of any authority they may have to consider the quality of existing services, neither does it create such authority. Efforts to assess existing quality ... must be authorized by and performed within the parameters of governing state and local law. Ho-Ho-Kus, 197 F.3d at 70. Because the Board had no basis in the local code for this criterion, the Board erred in its decision to require T-Mobile to demonstrate that the denial of the application would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless services.