T-MOBILE NORTHEAST LLC v. City of Newport News
674 F.3d 380
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- T-Mobile sought a conditional use permit to build a wireless tower at Nelson Elementary School in Newport News, VA.
- A joint Planning Department–School Board study and a balloon visibility test preceded a public process.
- Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval; City public hearing had mixed testimony, with residents opposing and some supporters tied to T-Mobile.
- City Council denied the permit by 4-3 vote, alleging concerns within its discretion.
- T-Mobile sued under 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) (substantial evidence) and § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) (health/emissions) and sought injunctive relief.
- District court granted summary judgment for T-Mobile; magistrate recommended, and district court adopted, ruling that denial lacked substantial evidence; City appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantial evidence supports denial of permit | T-Mobile argues denial lacked substantial record | City contends there was substantial evidence in record | Denial not supported by substantial evidence |
| Health/emissions concerns can justify denial under § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) | City relied on health concerns; health impacts not permitted in denial | Health concerns are valid basis under statute | Health concerns excised from record; cannot sustain denial on those grounds |
| Whether district court properly reviewed evidence under local ordinance criteria | Court should assess whether evidence met zoning-ordinance criteria | Court correctly focused on substantial-evidence standard for denial | Reviewed for substantial evidence, not de novo zoning compliance |
| Legislative opposition quantity constitutes substantial evidence | Opposition count is insufficient to show substantial evidence | Opposition and concerns relevant to reasonable decision-making | Overall opposition insufficient to sustain denial |
Key Cases Cited
- 360° Commc'ns Co. of Charlottesville v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Albemarle County, 211 F.3d 79 (4th Cir.2000) (local decisions require substantial evidence in record and respect local control)
- AT & T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City Council of City of Virginia Beach, 155 F.3d 423 (4th Cir.1998) (substantial-evidence standard for denial of wireless facilities)
- Petersburg Cellular Partnership v. Bd. of Supervisors of Nottoway County, 205 F.3d 688 (4th Cir.2000) (oppose-by-few can be insufficient for substantial evidence; context matters)
- Virginia Beach v. City of Virginia Beach, 155 F.3d 423 (4th Cir.1998) (illustrates opposition as factor in substantial-evidence review)
- New Cingular Wireless, PCS, LLC v. Fairfax County Bd. of Supervisors, 674 F.3d 270 (4th Cir.2012) (detailed substantial-evidence analysis with specific community input)
- USCOC of Virginia RSA #3 v. Montgomery County Bd. of Supervisors, 343 F.3d 262 (4th Cir.2003) (denial supported where zoning plans discourage such towers)
- Winston-Salem v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 172 F.3d 307 (4th Cir.1999) (board's denial upheld based on substantial local evidence)