T-MOBILE NORTHEAST LLC v. City of Lawrence
755 F. Supp. 2d 286
D. Mass.2010Background
- T-Mobile sues City of Lawrence and Lawrence Zoning Board of Appeals under 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7) for denial of permits to install a wireless facility on a residential condo building.
- Proposed facility would use six 6-foot antennas hidden in a stealth chimney on a non-conforming, five-unit condominium at 178 Haverhill Street in a residential zone.
- Lawrence Ordinance requires a special permit and site plan for wireless facilities in residential zones and prohibits such facilities within 1,000 feet of a residential lot; municipally-owned locations may be used.
- Board hearings in May 2009; after hearings, the Board denied the application by a 3-2 vote, citing insufficient facts and concerns about locating on municipally-owned property for revenue.
- City later provided a list of municipally-owned sites; T-Mobile contends two sites could be suitable but argues no public bidding process was conducted; plaintiff moves for summary judgment and a preliminary injunction directing the Board to grant permits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantial evidence requirement under §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). | T-Mobile contends Board failed to provide substantial evidence. | Board relied on general ordinance citations and conclusions. | Board's decision deficient; summary judgment for T-Mobile on Count II. |
| Effective prohibition ban under §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(III). | T-Mobile argues denial effectively prohibits service. | City argues no prohibition; not addressed. | Not addressed as moot after Count II ruling. |
| Appropriate remedy for TCA violation (injunction vs remand). | Remand appropriate to allow bidding; or injunctive relief to authorize construction. | Remand preferred to allow City bidding process; injunction not necessary. | Injunction issued directing Board to grant permits; remand rejected as too late. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat'l Tower, LLC v. Plainville Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 297 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2002) (expedited review and framework for substantial evidence in zoning)
- Sprint Spectrum v. Town of Swansea, 574 F. Supp. 2d 227 (D. Mass. 2008) (board cannot merely parrot zoning provisions; must show substantial evidence)
- Cellco P'ship v. Town of Grafton, 336 F. Supp. 2d 71 (D. Mass. 2004) (requires specific facts supporting conclusions; substantial evidence standard)
- Nextel Commc'ns of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Town of Wayland, 231 F. Supp. 2d 396 (D. Mass. 2002) (addressed coverage gap with evidence; cannot rely on unscientific evidence)
- Brehmer v. Planning Bd. of Wellfleet, 238 F.3d 117 (1st Cir. 2001) (expedited resolution and appropriate remedy under TCA)
- Amherst v. Omnipoint Commc'ns Enter., Inc., 173 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 1999) (balance between federal TCA goals and local control)
- Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (interpretive context for federal-state/local regulation of wireless facilities)