Intermax Towers, LLC v. Ada County, Idaho, 1:23-cv-00127

Intermax Towers, LLC applied to build a 100-foot monopole wireless tower in Ada County, Idaho, needed to address existing and anticipated gaps in wireless service due to population growth and decommissioning of a current site.
The area is experiencing rapid residential development, and existing wireless capacity (particularly in-building coverage) is already strained, with evidence showing all major carriers lack adequate service.
Intermax’s application included technical studies, propagation maps, drive tests, and evidence of attempts to find alternate sites; only one feasible site (Beacon Light Road) was available.
The Ada County Planning & Zoning Commission initially approved the application, but after public opposition and appeals, the Ada County Board ultimately denied it, citing property values, aesthetics, alleged lack of need, and alternative sites.
The County's own expert agreed the new tower was necessary at the proposed site and no viable alternatives existed, but this was disregarded.
Intermax sought judicial review, challenging the denial as lacking substantial evidence and violating the Telecommunications Act (TCA). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the denial was supported by substantial evidence	Ada County lacked substantial evidence; relied on lay opinions, not technical data.	Denial based on applicants’ failure to prove a significant gap and need for site.	No substantial evidence supported the denial; decision ignored expert/technical evidence.
Whether Intermax was required to prove a “significant gap” under local code	Ada County code does not require proof of “significant gap”; local, not federal standard applies.	Application failed to prove significant coverage gap, a necessary criterion.	Local code doesn’t require “significant gap;” county imposed unauthorized criteria.
Suitability of alternate sites	Only Beacon Light site was viable; evidence showed alternatives were not feasible.	Intermax failed to fully demonstrate Eagle High School or BLM sites weren’t possible.	Evidence established no alternative site was feasible; county’s code didn’t require more.
Adverse impacts (values, aesthetics, business)	Provided studies/data refuting negative impacts; opponents’ claims unsubstantiated.	Cited potential for property value decline, business harm, visual incompatibility.	Opposition unsupported by objective evidence; anecdotal complaints not substantial.

Omnipoint Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Pine Grove Twp., 181 F.3d 403 (3d Cir. 1999) (TCA preserves local zoning but imposes specific limitations on authority)
MetroPCS, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2005) (substantial evidence review in TCA context references local, not federal, standards)
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113 (2005) (TCA aims to remove local barriers while recognizing zoning power, but with limitations)
City of Roswell, Ga. v. T-Mobile S., LLC, 574 U.S. 293 (2015) (local denial of wireless facility must be supported by substantial evidence in the record)
Sprint PCS Assets, L.L.C. v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 583 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2009) (decision must be authorized by local law and supported by record evidence)
T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2009) (injunction is proper remedy when denial of wireless permit is unsupported)
Cellular Tel. Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of the Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus, 197 F.3d 64 (3d Cir. 1999) (authority to evaluate service quality comes from state or local law, not the TCA)