Opinion ID: 2197992
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Consideration of the TCA

Text: The petitioners first argue that the ZBA erroneously construed the TCA to preempt Omnipoint's burden of satisfying the statutory criteria. Specifically, they assert that several statements made by board members during the course of its deliberations demonstrate an overly deferential application of the TCA. We disagree. The TCA was enacted to expand the availability of wireless telecommunications services and to increase competition in the wireless telecommunications industry. Nextel Comm. of Mid-Atlantic v. City of Cambridge, 246 F.Supp.2d 118, 122 (D.Mass.2003). However, it preserves state and local authority over the siting and construction of wireless communication facilities, subject to five exceptions specified in the Act. Second Generation Props. v. Town of Pelham, 313 F.3d 620, 627 (1st Cir.2002). If a board decision is not supported by substantial evidence ... or if it effectively prohibits the provision of wireless service ... then under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, local law is pre-empted in order to effectuate the TCA's national policy goals. Id. Overall, the TCA attempts to reconcile the goal of preserving local authority over land use with the need to facilitate nationally the growth of wireless telephone service. Id. at 631 (quotations omitted). The ZBA discussed the TCA's role in its consideration of Omnipoint's applications on numerous occasions throughout the six-month hearing process. Each time, the ZBA accurately addressed the nature of the TCA, and the ongoing duty of Omnipoint to meet the five variance criteria. The ZBA's discussion at the start of its deliberations illustrates its proper understanding of the TCA: Larry O'Sullivan: [The TCA is] shadowing what we're doing here but they gotta [ sic ] meet these criteria first and then we'll forgive [ sic ] what the Telecommunications Act has to do.... The way I look at this is did they meet the five (5) criteria first? And then we'll talk about what the TCA does, if that's necessary. Mike Brown: That's a true statement. They have to ... you're making a good point that even though the TCA is an umbrella, it is something that we have to keep in mind, the first thing that has to happen is the Board, a consensus of the Board, a majority of the Board who votes on this, needs to be satisfied that all five (5) points of law were met from a burden standpoint........ Yves Steger: What happens if they don't meet, let's say, one (1) point of law. Do we deny? Mark Officer: We judge it like we judge every case. .... Mike Brown: Just like any other case. There's no difference with that standard. Contrary to the petitioners' assertion, the ZBA did not substitute the TCA in place of its own judgment with respect to the five variance criteria. These and other statements contained in the record reflect an accurate understanding and proper consideration of the TCA. The ZBA was correct to characterize the TCA as an umbrella under which a ZBA must evaluate an application to construct a telecommunications tower, as the TCA will preempt local law under certain circumstances. See 47 U.S.C.A. § 332(c)(7). As the First Circuit Court of Appeals has noted, although the TCA does not explicitly authorize a zoning board to consider whether a decision amounts to an effective prohibition of the provision of wireless service, [s]ince board actions will be invalidated by a federal court if they violate the effective prohibition provision, many boards wisely do consider the point. Second Generation Props., 313 F.3d at 630. Thus, the standards set forth in the TCA provide a gloss over the deliberative process, and the ZBA correctly considered its implications. It was therefore appropriate for the ZBA to contemplate whether a decision to deny Omnipoint's variance application would have the effect of prohibiting towers in violation of the TCA. Furthermore, contrary to the petitioners' argument, statements made by board members during the course of deliberations do not demonstrate that those board members deemed certain variance criteria mooted by application of the TCA. As the trial court aptly noted, Although the ZBA members discussed their concern that a decision to deny a request for a telecommunications tower could constitute an effective prohibition of wireless services and thus constitute a violation of the TCA; contrary to the petitioners' claim, this concern did not result in a misapplication of the law or an abdication of the Board's authority to consider the merits of the application for a variance. Indeed, the objectionable statements express a general concern, rather than a final determination, that the variance criteria had not been met and denial would amount to an effective prohibition. Thus, upon our review of the record, we find no basis upon which to conclude that the ZBA allowed the TCA to preempt its own findings with regard to the statutory criteria.