646 F.3d 76
1st Cir.2011Background
- Slades own property in Alton, NH; proposed 100–120 foot cell tower would be within sight of their lake views, allegedly harming property value.
- Industrial Communications sought to build at 486 East Side Drive; zoning limited towers to 10 feet above canopy, implying a 71-foot practical limit per forester calculations.
- Industrial Communications received a denial of a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment; it did not pursue state-court review of that denial.
- Industrial Communications and wireless carriers filed a federal action under 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7) to override the local denial.
- The Town began settlement negotiations; the plaintiffs and town filed an Agreement for Entry of Consent Decree providing for a 100-foot tower; Slades intervened but opposed the settlement.
- The district court approved the consent decree; the Slades challenged whether they could maintain their claims and whether the decree properly overridden state-law rights; the court ultimately vacated its judgment and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of Slades to sue and intervene | Slades have Article III injury and independent state-law rights threatened by decree. | Slades lack federal standing to pursue claims arising from state actions not their own. | Slades have Article III standing to resist entry of the decree. |
| Slades' ability to pursue Act relief as intervenors | Act provides standing to those adversely affected by inconsistent state/local action. | Slades cannot claim rights under the Act for their own objections to the decree. | Slades may pursue Act-based objections because their state-law rights are affected by the decree. |
| Authority of district court to approve a consent decree that overrides state-law rights | Consent decree may override state-law rights if compelled by the Act and properly supported. | Decree cannot extinguish state-law rights without proper findings and proceedings. | Consent decree overrides state-law rights; district court must have authority to enter the decree and obtain opposition findings where applicable. |
| Whether the Town could settle on behalf of the Board without undermining Slades' rights | Town lacked authority to concede and thus rights of Slades could be harmed. | Town could settle; Slades could protect their interests independently in state court. | Slades may protect their interests; settlement on behalf of Board does not require dismissal of Slades' rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Amherst v. Omnipoint Commc'ns Enters., Inc., 173 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 1999) (affirms Congress's power to override local restrictions in § 332(c)(7))
- Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54 (1986) (intervenor's standing dependent on Article III requirements)
- Local No. 93, Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501 (1986) (intervenor cannot block settlement absent independent rights)
- Brehmer v. Planning Bd. of Wellfleet, 238 F.3d 117 (1st Cir. 2001) (state-law rights can be overridden by federal decree under proper proceedings)
- Metheny v. Becker, 352 F.3d 458 (1st Cir. 2003) (protects when considering decree procedures and party interests)
- Drago v. Garment, 691 F. Supp. 2d 490 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (Discussion of lack of statute-based standing for certain actions)