Opinion ID: 783465
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Effective Prohibition

Text: 44 VoiceStream submits that the district court erred when it granted the County's motion for summary judgment because the County's denial of VoiceStream's SEP application had the effect of prohibiting personal wireless services. VoiceStream maintains that it adequately demonstrated that the Somerset site is the only legally and technologically viable alternative to close the undisputed coverage gap. The County, on the other hand, maintains that the district court properly granted summary judgment in its favor because VoiceStream did not meet its burden of proving the absence of other feasible alternatives to fill the coverage gap. 45 The TCA provides that, in regulating the placement and construction of personal wireless facilities, a state or local government shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). Whether a particular zoning decision violates the TCA's anti-prohibition clause is a question that a federal district court determines in the first instance without any deference to the [local zoning] board. National Tower, LLC v. Plainville Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 297 F.3d 14, 22 (1st Cir.2002). In resolving this issue, the district court may require evidence to be presented in court that is outside of the administrative record compiled by the local authority. Id. This court reviews de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment to the County. See id. 46 We have not addressed squarely the meaning of the TCA's anti-prohibition clause. See Aegerter, 174 F.3d at 890 (holding that the city's decision to deny the provider's request to replace an existing tower was supported by substantial evidence and declining to comment on how broad the duty is on any given municipal entity to ensure that wireless services remain available because the provider conceded that it could continue to provide service with the existing tower). Other circuits have determined that the clause is not restricted to blanket bans on cell towers, and that [t]he clause may, at times, apply to individual zoning decisions. Second Generation Props., 313 F.3d at 629; see also 360 Degrees Communications Co. of Charlottesville v. Bd. of Supervisors of Albemarle County, 211 F.3d 79, 86 (4th Cir.2000); APT Pittsburgh Ltd. P'ship v. Penn Township Butler County, 196 F.3d 469, 479 (3d Cir. 1999); Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 640 (2d Cir.1999); but see AT & T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City Council of City of Virginia Beach, 155 F.3d 423, 427 (4th Cir.1998) (concluding that the TCA's anti-prohibition clause applies only to blanket prohibitions and general bans or policies, not to individual zoning decisions). Those courts properly have recognized that [c]onstruing subsection B(i)(II) to apply only to general bans would lead to the conclusion that, in the absence of an explicit anti-tower policy, a court would have to wait for a series of denied applications before it could step in and force a local government to end its illegal boycott of personal wireless services. Willoth, 176 F.3d at 640-41. 47 Although an individual zoning decision is capable of violating the anti-prohibition clause and the provider need not show a consistent pattern of denials or evidence of express hostility to personal wireless facilities, ... it is necessary for the provider to show more than that it was denied an opportunity to fill a gap in its service system. Penn Township, 196 F.3d at 480; see also Albemarle, 211 F.3d at 86 ([C]ase-by-case denials of permits for particular sites cannot, without more, be construed as a denial of wireless services.). 7 The First Circuit has held that the provider carries the heavy burden to show not just that this application has been rejected but that further reasonable efforts are so likely to be fruitless that it is a waste of time even to try. Town of Pelham, 313 F.3d at 629 (quoting Town of Amherst, 173 F.3d at 14); see also Plainville, 297 F.3d at 20. Under this standard, the provider must show that its existing application is the only feasible plan and that there are no other potential solutions to the purported problem. Town of Pelham, 313 F.3d at 630, 635; see also Albemarle, 211 F.3d at 86-87 (stating that, conceptually, if wireless service could feasibly be provided from only one site, a denial of a permit for a facility at that site could amount to a prohibition of wireless services, in violation of (B)(i)(II), but noting that such a situation is unlikely in the real world). 8 We agree with the First Circuit's formulation of the statutory requirement and hold that, so long as the service provider has not investigated thoroughly the possibility of other viable alternatives, the denial of an individual permit does not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 47 U.S.C § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). 48 The district court correctly determined that VoiceStream failed to meet its heavy burden of showing that its proposal to build a 185-foot tower on the Haase property is the only feasible plan for closing the gap in its coverage along Highways 95 and 35 and the St. Croix River. R.32 at 29. Although several alternatives to the Somerset site were suggested by both the County and VoiceStream, these alternatives were not pursued such that VoiceStream thoroughly investigated the viability of other alternatives. Although VoiceStream did investigate, at least partially, two single-tower alternatives to the Somerset site in its crane test, there is no evidence in the record to indicate that VoiceStream made a significant effort to investigate any multiple-tower alternatives despite the repeated requests of the Board of Adjustment. In particular, there is no evidence in the record to indicate that VoiceStream pursued adequately either of the multiple-tower alternatives that it mentioned during the May 24, 2000, meeting. See R.16, Ex.N at 2. The first of these multiple-tower alternatives included a tower in the Riverway. VoiceStream argues that such a placement is legally impermissible. It has not explained, however, why the repeated offers of both the Park Service and the County to consider favorably such an alternative would not permit adequate compliance. Moreover, the second multiple-tower alternative did not require the placement of any towers in the Riverway. Rather, this second alternative consisted solely of a series of towers along Minnesota 95 and Wisconsin 35. See id. In sum, VoiceStream indicated that both of these multiple-tower configurations might be viable alternatives to the Somerset site. Consequently, it was obligated to undertake further investigation to determine the feasability of each. 49 After the first hearing, the Board of Adjustment requested that VoiceStream provide information on alternative sites with explanations of why they do or do not work for [VoiceStream's] intended purpose. R.16, Ex.Y at ¶ 5. 9 In particular, the Board of Adjustment requested that a plan be prepared (with a narrative, map and mock-up) that shows more towers at lesser heights to lessen the visual impact on this national scenic area. Id. Later, in a meeting held on October 9, 2000, Nelson reiterated that the Board of Adjustment wanted VoiceStream to investigate the use of a series of smaller structures to be used in the aggregate rather than one standard tower to meet its coverage objectives. R.23 at ¶ 4; see also R.24 at ¶¶ 3-4. Nelson met again with VoiceStream on October 25, 2000, and once more emphasized the negative visual impact of the single-tower approach and suggested that VoiceStream investigate alternatives using multiple, shorter structures that would be less conspicuous and more easily concealed and camouflaged. R.23 at ¶ 5; see also R.24 at ¶ 5. 50 VoiceStream responded to the Board of Adjustment's request by a May 10, 2001, letter in which it stated that it had already applied stealth technology and reconfigued its project to improve aesthetics under the current proposal, and that VoiceStream engineers have evaluated alternative means to meet the coverage objective using shorter towers. See R.16, Ex.OO at 4. VoiceStream went on to explain that the zoning ordinances along the river are very restrictive and the topography is difficult because of the undulating terrain. See id. VoiceStream then concluded that the height of the proposed Somerset site tower is the minimum that will provide acceptable coverage within the river area. Id. 51 Shortly after reviewing this response, the County Zoning Office sent a staff report to VoiceStream in which it concluded that VoiceStream had not adequately responded to the Board of Adjustment's request for information regarding multiple-tower alternatives. Specifically, the staff report stated that [i]t is unclear[] to what extent other sites were actually considered[,] investigated[, or] analyzed. Alternative mock-up plans have not been provided. See R.20, Ex.7A at 2. Later, on June 20, 2001, Nelson was contacted by Steve Ramberg, the senior VoiceStream radio frequency operator who had conducted a review of alternative locations for constructing a tower. Nelson's conversation with Ramberg led him to conclude that VoiceStream had only considered single-tower alternatives, and had not considered whether an aggregation of sites could be used to meet VoiceStream's coverage objectives. See R.23 at ¶ 7. In the intervening weeks between VoiceStream's receipt of the staff report and the second hearing, VoiceStream failed to submit any additional information to the Board of Adjustment regarding multiple-tower configurations as alternatives to the Somerset site proposal. Based on this incomplete response, the Board of Adjustment determined that VoiceStream had not adequately researched or brought forth information on an alternative site or multiple alternative sites to lessen the visual impact on the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. See R.16, EX.BBB at 1. 52 The disparity in substance between what the Board of Adjustment received from VoiceStream on the Somerset site and what they received on multiple-tower alternatives is telling. Although VoiceStream provided extensive maps, diagrams, environmental assessments and historic assessments for the Somerset site, VoiceStream provided no maps, diagrams, or any type of assessment on multiple-tower configurations as alternative sites. Instead, the record contains only conclusory statements. Such conclusory statements by the applicant, without more, are insufficient to establish that the applicant has exhausted thoroughly the possibility of other viable alternatives. VoiceStream's conclusory statements that multiple-tower alternatives are not feasible are insufficient to prove that the Board of Adjustment's denial of its Somerset site application prohibit[s] or ha[s] the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 47 U.S.C § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).