Olson v. Town of Yarmouth, 179 A.3d 920

Verizon sought Planning Board approval to install wireless antennas on a Yarmouth Water District tower and ground equipment cabinets; the same site had a prior 2001 Sprint application that the Board denied.
Neighbors Olson and Rabin opposed Verizon’s proposal, citing visual, noise, and proximity concerns; Rabin lives within 500 feet and Olson’s property abuts the water district site.
Verizon explained its site-selection process at public meetings, saying it searched for coverage gaps and suitable co-location sites and that the water tower avoided constructing a new tower.
The Town Planner recommended approval, finding Verizon described its site-selection process and that co-location on the existing water tower met ordinance goals; the Planning Board granted conditional approval.
Olson and Rabin appealed to Superior Court under M.R. Civ. P. 80B; the court affirmed the Planning Board, and the appellants timely appealed to this Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a prior Planning Board denial creates a rebuttable presumption that the site is unsuitable for future co-location (art. II(Z)(4)(a)(3))	Olson/Rabin: The 2001 denial of Sprint established a presumption of unsuitability that Verizon had to rebut.	Verizon/Board: The presumption applies only to determinations made in the context of new-tower applications, not routine co-location applicants.	Court held the ordinance’s presumption applies to new-tower applicants only; Board did not err by not requiring Verizon to rebut a presumption.
Whether there was substantial evidence that Verizon investigated other technically feasible sites (art. II(Z)(9)(c))	Olson/Rabin: Record lacks substantial evidence that Verizon considered and rejected other technically feasible sites.	Verizon/Board: Verizon presented its site-selection process at hearings and explained other sites were unsuitable; Planner’s report and testimony supplied evidence.	Court held the Planning Board had substantial evidence (testimony, Planner’s report, application) to conclude Verizon investigated alternatives.

Osprey Family Tr. v. Town of Owls Head, 141 A.3d 1114 (Me. 2016) (standard of review and substantial-evidence inquiry for planning board decisions)
Bizier v. Town of Turner, 32 A.3d 1048 (Me. 2011) (deference to planning board fact-findings and ordinance interpretation)
Fryeburg Tr. v. Town of Fryeburg, 151 A.3d 933 (Me. 2016) (ordinance interpretation principles)
Desfosses v. City of Saco, 128 A.3d 648 (Me. 2015) (avoid constructions that lead to absurd or anomalous results)
Dickau v. Vt. Mut. Ins. Co., 107 A.3d 621 (Me. 2014) (interpretation focuses on plain language and legislative intent)