Green Mountain Realty Corp. v. Leonard, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Green Mountain Realty Corp. v. Leonard, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/27

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 2163

GREEN MOUNTAI N REALTY CORP. ,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

J OHN S. LEONARD, Member and Chai r man of Town of Mi l t on Boar d ofAppeal s; SARA L. HARNI SH, Member of Town of Mi l t on Board of

Appeal s; VI RGI NI A M. DONAHUE KI NG, Member of Town of Mi l t on Boar d

of Appeal s; BRI AN M. HURLEY, Member of Town of Mi l t on Board ofAppeal s; J EFFREY B. MULLAN, Member of Town of Mi l t on Board ofAppeal s; FRANCI S C. O' BRI EN, Member of Town of Mi l t on Board of

Appeal s; EMANUEL ALVES, Member of Town of Mi l t on Boar d ofAppeal s; STEVEN M. LUNDBOHM, Member of Town of Mi l t on Boar d of

Appeal s; TOWN OF MI LTON, MASSACHUSETTS; MI LTON CONSERVATI ONCOMMI SSI ON; MI LTON BOARD OF APPEALS,

Def endant s, Appel l ees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Rya W. Zobel , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Thompson, Ci r cui t J udge,Sout er , Associ at e J ust i ce, *

St ahl , Ci r cui t J udge.

Robert D. Ci andel l a, wi t h whomRobert M. Derosi er and Donahue,Tucker & Ci andel l a, PLLC, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant .

Br andon H. Moss, wi t h whom J ohn P. Fl ynn and Murphy, Hesse,Toomey & Lehane, LLP wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ees.

* The Hon. Davi d H. Sout er , Associ at e J ust i ce ( Ret . ) of t heSupr eme Cour t of t he Uni t ed St at es, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/27

Apr i l 23, 2014


3/27

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Thi s di sput e over t he l ocat i on

and hei ght of a pr oposed cel l ul ar phone tower has been ongoi ng

si nce 2009 and i s now bef ore us f or t he second t i me. I n a

nut shel l , appel l ant Gr een Mount ai n Real t y Cor p. ( "GMR") or i gi nal l y

sought t o er ect a 140- f oot cel l phone t ower bet ween I nt er st at e

Rout e 93 Sout h ( " I - 93" ) and the on- r amp by Exi t 3 i n Mi l t on,

Massachuset t s. The t ower ' s asser t ed pur pose was t o f i l l a

si gni f i cant gap i n t he wi r el ess cover age pr ovi ded by T- Mobi l e' s and

Met r oPCS' s networks. Mi l t on' s Boar d of Appeal s ( "BOA") and

Conservat i on Commi ssi on ( "MCC") - - t he t wo l ocal ent i t i es whose

appr oval GMR needed bef or e i t coul d begi n const r uct i on- - r ej ect ed

t he 140- f oot pr oposed t ower . GMR t ur ned t o t he f eder al cour t s,

asser t i ng t he deni al s were pr eempt ed by f ederal l aw and nami ng as

def endant s t he BOA, t he MCC, t he i ndi vi dual members of bot h, and

t he Town of Mi l t on i t sel f ( col l ect i vel y, "Mi l t on") . The di str i ct

cour t gr ant ed summary j udgment t o Mi l t on, f i ndi ng that t he BOA' s

and MCC' s deci si ons wer e support ed by subst ant i al evi dence i n t he

admi ni st r at i ve r ecord, and GMR appeal ed t o us.

Addr essi ng t hi s mat t er t he f i r st t i me, we uphel d t he

"subst ant i al evi dence" f i ndi ngs but r emanded t o t he di st r i ct cour t

wi t h i nst r uct i ons t o consi der whet her t he l ocal aut hor i t i es'

deni al s r esul t ed i n an "ef f ect i ve pr ohi bi t i on" of per sonal wi r el ess

servi ces i n cont r avent i on of t he f eder al Tel ecommuni cat i ons Act of

1996, 47 U. S. C. 332( 7) ( B) ( i ) ( I I ) . The par t i es f i l ed cross-

-3-


4/27

mot i ons f or summary j udgment upon t hei r r et ur n t o t he di st r i ct

cour t . Af t er hol di ng a hear i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t l ear ned t hat T-

Mobi l e and Met r oPCS had merged i nto a si ngl e company- - T- Mobi l e

USA- - and or dered t he par t i es t o br i ef whether and how t he merger

af f ect ed t he pendi ng cr oss- mot i ons.

GMR t hen submi t t ed evi dence i ndi cat i ng t hat , as a r esul t

of t he mer ger , a shor t er t ower woul d suf f i ce t o el i mi nat e t he

cover age gap i n T- Mobi l e' s net wor k. Mi l t on t ook t he posi t i on t hat

GMR must f i l e a br and new appl i cat i on, as t he or i gi nal r equest was

f or a 140- f oot t ower onl y. The di st r i ct cour t deni ed GMR' s mot i on

f or summar y j udgment and gr ant ed Mi l t on' s, t her eaf t er ent er i ng

j udgment i n f avor of Mi l t on and t r i gger i ng GMR' s second appeal t o

t hi s Cour t .

Havi ng caref ul l y r evi ewed t he r ecord, we concl ude t he

di st r i ct cour t er r ed when i t gr ant ed Mi l t on' s mot i on f or summar y

j udgment . Based on t he summar y j udgment r ecor d and t he

suppl ement al mat er i al s bear i ng on t he ef f ect i ve pr ohi bi t i on cl ai m,

a reasonabl e f i nder of f act coul d have f ound t hat t he BOA' s and

MCC' s deni al s r ej ect ed t he onl y f easi bl e pl an f or r emedyi ng t he

cover age gap and, t her ef or e, const i t ut ed an unl awf ul ef f ect i ve

pr ohi bi t i on of T- Mobi l e' s pr ovi si on of wi r el ess ser vi ces unl ess GMR

was al l owed t o bui l d a cel l phone t ower t hat was somewher e bet ween

90 and 120 f eet t al l . Accor di ngl y, we af f i r mt he di st r i ct cour t ' s

deni al of GMR' s mot i on f or summary j udgment , r everse i t s grant of

-4-


5/27

summary j udgment i n f avor of Mi l t on, vacat e t he j udgment i n

Mi l t on' s f avor , and r emand f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs consi st ent wi t h

t hi s opi ni on.

I.

BACKGROUND

We pr evi ousl y set f or t h many of t he backgr ound f act s i n

Gr een Mount ai n Real t y Corp. v. Leonard, 688 F. 3d 40 ( 1st Ci r .

2012) . I n or der t o pr ovi de cont ext t o t he i nst ant appeal , we

sket ch t he out l i ne of what has al r eady t r anspi r ed, at l east i nsof ar

as i s r el evant her e. Cur i ous r eader s seeki ng addi t i onal det ai l s- -

and t hey ar e myr i ad- - shoul d r ef er di r ect l y to our 2012 opi ni on.

a. The Initial Proposal

GMR i s not a t el ecommuni cat i ons pr ovi der . I nst ead, i t

owns and manages per sonal wi r el ess communi cat i ons f aci l i t i es

( "PWCFs" ) , known i n common par l ance as cel l phone t owers. I t makes

money by l easi ng space on t hose t ower s t o wi r el ess car r i er s, who i n

t ur n pl ace ant ennas on t he t ower s t o pr ovi de wi r el ess cover age f or

t hei r cust omers. Si nce 2008, GMR has l eased f r omt he Commonweal t h

of Massachuset t s an unzoned, undevel oped, t r i angul ar pl ot of l and

appr oxi matel y 2, 700 square f eet i n area and l ocat ed bet ween I - 93

Sout h and t he on- r amp at Exi t 3 ( " t he Si t e" ) . The Si t e i s l ocat ed

cl ose to t he Bl ue Hi l l s Reservat i on and t he Car i sbr ooke Road

nei ghbor hood i n t he t own of Mi l t on.

-5-


6/27

GMR l eased t he Si t e wi t h t he i nt ent i on of put t i ng up a

cel l phone t ower t o i mpr ove wi r el ess cover age i n t he area ar ound

Exi t 3. Wi r el ess car r i er s T- Mobi l e and Met r oPCS had gi ven

assur ances t o GMR, i n t he f or m of l et t er s of i nt ent , t hat t hey

woul d pl ace ant ennas on t he new t ower . Bot h compani es were

desi r ous of t hi s l ocat i on because i t woul d al l ow t hem t o i mpr ove

t hei r wi r el ess cover age ar ound Exi t 3, an ar ea i n whi ch each had

i dent i f i ed a si gni f i cant cover age gap t hat r esul t ed i n dr opped

cal l s when cust omer s ent er ed t he ar ea and an i nabi l i t y to r el i abl y

pl ace cal l s f r om wi t hi n t he ar ea of i nadequat e ser vi ce. I n or der

t o begi n const r uct i on, however , GMR needed t o wi n appr oval f r om

bot h t he BOA and t he MCC.

GMR appl i ed t o t he BOA i n May of 2009 f or per mi ss i on t o

bui l d a 140- f oot cel l phone t ower on t he Si t e. Accor di ng t o i t s

appl i cat i on, t he hei ght was necessary t o accommodat e vi deo

equi pment f r om t he Massachuset t s Hi ghway Depar t ment , al ong wi t h

f i ve ant enna mount s t o be used by up t o f i ve di f f er ent wi r el ess

carr i er s. GMR al so submi t t ed evi dence t endi ng t o show t hat both T-

Mobi l e and Met r oPCS had si gni f i cant cover age gaps i n t he area near

Exi t 3 and t hat t he Si t e was t he onl y f easi bl e l ocat i on on whi ch a

cel l phone t ower coul d be pl aced t o f i l l i n t he gaps. Ther e was

some communi t y opposi t i on t o t he proposal t hat appears t o have been

based pr i mar i l y on aest het i c concer ns: t he obj ect or s wer e upset

t hat t he tower woul d have been vi si bl e f r om mul t i pl e l ocat i ons i n

-6-


7/27

t he Bl ue Hi l l s Reser vat i on, as wel l as f r om wi t hi n t he Car i sbr ooke

Road nei ghbor hood.

The BOA hel d several publ i c hear i ngs t hrough t he summer

of 2009, wi t h obj ect or s mai nt ai ni ng t hat " t he need f or t he t ower

di d not out wei gh t he si gni f i cant negat i ve aest het i c ef f ect s. "

Gr een Mountai n Real t y, 688 F. 3d at 46. On August 19, 2009, t he BOA

vot ed t o deny t he appl i cat i on and i ssued a wr i t t en opi ni on on

Sept ember 24, 2009, whi ch "emphasi zed t he publ i c opposi t i on t o t he

pr oposed t ower and the i mport ance of pr otect i ng t he character and

aest het i c beaut y of t he Bl ue Hi l l s Reser vat i on. " I d. I n a si mi l ar

vei n, t he BOA f ound t he pr oposed 140- f oot t ower coul d be seen f r om

t he Car i sbrooke Road nei ghborhood and "woul d subst ant i al l y det r act

f r om t he char act er of t he nei ghbor hood. " I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on

mar ks omi t t ed) . The BOA f ur t her f ound t hat " exi st i ng [ wi r el ess]

cover age whi l e not per f ect i s r easonabl e and adequat e under al l of

t he ci r cumst ances. " I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Fi ndi ng that GMR f ai l ed to demonst r at e i t s desi r ed tower woul d

"promot e[ ] t he saf et y, wel f ar e, or aest het i c i nt er est s of t he Town

of Mi l t on, " t he BOA concl uded the pr oposal was "not i n harmony wi t h

t he [ zoni ng] Byl aw" and deni ed GMR' s appl i cat i on. I d. ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Whi l e al l t hi s was goi ng on, GMR was al so at t empt i ng t o

wi n appr oval f r om t he MCC, anot her necessary pr er equi si t e t o

const r uct i on because t he Si t e i s consi der ed t o be i n a r i ver f r ont

-7-


8/27

ar ea gi ven i t s pr oxi mi t y t o t he Bl ue Hi l l s Ri ver . Gr een Mount ai n

Real t y, 688 F. 3d at 47. The MCC ul t i mat el y deni ed GMR' s

appl i cat i on on Sept ember 19, 2009, f i ndi ng t hat i t coul d not

appr ove t he pr oposal gi ven GMR' s f ai l ur e t o pr ovi de i t wi t h any

i nf or mat i on about pot ent i al al t er nat i ve si t es. I d. at 48. Li ke

t he BOA, t he MCC al so ci t ed aest het i c r easons: r ei t er at i ng t hat i t

has a rol e i n pr eser vi ng aest het i cs, t he MCC expl i ci t l y stat ed t hat

" t he hei ght of t he tower was, and r emai ns, an i mpor t ant f act or f or

consi der at i on. " I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . The MCC

f ur t her cal l ed GMR t o task f or supposedl y f ai l i ng t o pr ovi de

r equest ed dat a about whether a short er t ower woul d sol ve t he

cover age gap. I d. I t not ed t hat because t he Si t e was al r eady i n

a "degr aded" condi t i on as a r esul t of I - 93, t he wet l ands t her e "ar e

i n gr eat er need of pr ot ect i on, r at her t han l ess. " I d. ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Accor di ngl y, and l i ke t he BOA bef or e i t ,

t he MCC deni ed GMR' s appl i cat i on t o bui l d a 140- f oot cel l phone

t ower . I d.

b. Federal Litigation Begins

GMR appeal ed t o the di st r i ct cour t , ar gui ng t hat t he BOA

and MCC deci si ons vi ol at ed var i ous provi si ons of t he

Tel ecommuni cat i ons Act . Gr een Mount ai n Real t y, 688 F. 3d at 48.

Fi r st , GMR argued t hat t he t wo deni al s were not based on

subst ant i al evi dence i n cont r avent i on of t he requi r ement t hat

"[ a] ny deci si on . . . t o deny a r equest t o pl ace, const r uct , or

-8-


9/27

modi f y per sonal wi r el ess ser vi ce f aci l i t i es shal l be . . .

suppor t ed by subst ant i al evi dence cont ai ned i n t he wr i t t en r ecor d. "

I d. at 49 ( quot i ng 47 U. S. C. 332( c)( 7) ( B) ( i i i ) ) ( i nt er nal

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) . GMR f ur t her ar gued t hat t he deni al s ran

af oul of t he Act ' s ban of l ocal deci si ons t hat "pr ohi bi t or have

t he ef f ect of pr ohi bi t i ng t he pr ovi si on of per sonal wi r el ess

ser vi ces. " I d. ( quot i ng 47 U. S. C. 332( c) ( 7) ( B) ( i ) ( I I ) ) ( i nt er nal

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) . Fi nal l y, GMR cl ai med t he BOA' s deni al

exceeded i t s aut hor i t y and was ar bi t r ar y and capr i ci ous, al l i n

vi ol at i on of st at e l aw. I d.

Af t er t he par t i es conduct ed di scover y, t he di st r i ct cour t

deni ed GMR' s mot i on f or summary j udgment and gr ant ed Mi l t on' s

mot i on f or summary j udgment . I d. The cour t f ound t hat bot h

deni al s wer e suppor t ed by subst ant i al evi dence i n t he

admi ni st r at i ve r ecor d. Wi t h r espect t o t he BOA, t he di st r i ct cour t

f ound t hat GMR " f ai l ed t o show t hat exi st i ng servi ce was

i nadequat e" and di d not "adequat el y expl or e al t er nat i ve si t es, "

t hat t he BOA was j ust i f i ed i n denyi ng t he appl i cat i on due t o

aest het i c concerns, and t hat GMR "had not demonst r ated that i t s

pr oposal was t he onl y f easi bl e pl an. " I d. The cour t uphel d t he

MCC' s deci si on on t he gr ounds t hat subst ant i al evi dence support ed

i t s concl usi on t hat t he pr oposed const r uct i on woul d adver sel y

af f ect t he sur r oundi ng wet l ands. I d. The cour t di d not separ at el y

addr ess GMR' s cl ai ms t hat t he MCC' s deci si on al so const i t ut ed an

-9-


10/27

ef f ect i ve pr ohi bi t i on of wi r el ess ser vi ce and t hat t he BOA' s

deci si on shoul d be over t ur ned on st at e l aw gr ounds. I d.

On appeal , we uphel d t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ng t hat

subst ant i al evi dence suppor t ed t he BOA and MCC deni al s. Gr een

Mount ai n Real t y, 688 F. 3d at 44. However , t hi s di d not end t he

mat t er . Even t hough suppor t ed by subst ant i al evi dence, t he deni al s

coul d vi ol at e t he Tel ecommuni cat i ons Act i f t hey resul t ed i n t he

ef f ect i ve pr ohi bi t i on of t he pr ovi si on of wi r el ess ser vi ces. See

i d. at 57. Af t er r evi ewi ng t he r ecor d, we concl uded t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t di d not adequat el y consi der GMR' s f eder al cl ai ms,

and r emanded f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs, " l eav[ i ng] i t t o t he

di scret i on of t he di st r i ct cour t whet her t o eval uat e t he cl ai ms on

t he cur r ent r ecor d or al l ow t he par t i es t o submi t addi t i onal

evi dence. " I d. at 60- 61.

c. Further Action in the District Court

Taki ng up t he mat t er agai n, t he di st r i ct cour t provi ded

t he par t i es wi t h an oppor t uni t y to submi t addi t i onal evi dence wi t h

r espect t o t he ef f ect i ve pr ohi bi t i on cl ai m. The par t i es devel oped

addi t i onal evi dence and cr oss- moved f or summary j udgment . The

cour t heard or al argument s on May 15, 2013, and t ook t he mat t er

under advi sement . 1 Bef or e i ssui ng i t s deci si on, t he di st r i ct cour t

1 The hear i ng consi st ed of l egal ar gument s f r om counsel f orbot h si des based upon t he document ary evi dence submi t t ed i n suppor tof t he pendi ng summary j udgment mot i ons. To dat e, no evi dent i aryhear i ng has ever been hel d i n t he di st r i ct cour t .

-10-


11/27

became aware t hat T- Mobi l e and Met r oPCS had merged i nto a si ngl e

company, T- Mobi l e US, I nc. ( "T- Mobi l e US") , i n or around May 2013. 2

The cour t or dered t he par t i es t o "submi t suppl ement al br i ef s and,

i f necessary, document ary evi dence on how t hi s merger shoul d af f ect

t he pendi ng summar y j udgment mot i ons. "

GMR submi t t ed i t s suppl ement al br i ef on August 30, 2013.

Al t hough GMR t ook t he posi t i on t hat t he quest i on shoul d be "deci ded

on t he f act s suppor t ed by the af f i davi t s as t hey exi st ed i n 2009, "

i t conceded t he di st r i ct cour t had "di scret i on t o t ake i nt o account

new f act s descr i bed her ei n [ i . e. , GMR' s suppl ement al br i ef ] t o

f ashi on an appr opr i ate r emedy. " I n t hat r egard, GMR mai nt ai ned

t hat , even post - mer ger , T- Mobi l e US cont i nues t o have a cover age

gap i n t he ar ea ar ound Exi t 3, t hat t he Si t e was t he onl y avai l abl e

and t echni cal l y f easi bl e si t e, and t hat "t o cl ose t hi s si gni f i cant

gap, [ T- Mobi l e US] needs t o mount i t s ant enna no l ower t han 117

f eet . "

2 I t appears f rom t he di st r i ct court ' s deci s i on t hat i tobt ai ned t hi s i nf or mat i on f r om pr ess r el eases and f i l i ngs made byT- Mobi l e wi t h t he f eder al government . GMR i nt i mat es i n i t s br i eft hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed by t aki ng j udi ci al not i ce of t hesemat er i al s. However , GMR has not pr evi ousl y and does not now

cont est any of t he f act s der i ved f r om t hese mat er i al s and uponwhi ch t he di st r i ct court rel i ed. I ndeed, i t i s cl ear f rom i t sbr i ef s and counsel ' s st at ement s at oral argument t hat GMR concedest hat T- Mobi l e and Met r oPCS have merged and t hat Met r oPCS users wi l lbe mi gr at ed t o t he T- Mobi l e net work. Accor di ngl y, GMR has wai vedany ar gument as t o t he pr opr i et y of t he j udi ci al not i ce t aken i nt hi s case.

-11-


12/27

GMR submi t t ed an August 29, 2013, af f i davi t of i t s owner

and pr esi dent , Vi ct or Dr oui n, t o suppor t t he cl ai ms t hat T- Mobi l e

US cont i nues t o have a si gni f i cant cover age gap near Exi t 3 and

t hat "[ t ] o cl ose t hi s si gni f i cant gap, [ T- Mobi l e US' s] ant enna

cannot be any l ower t han 117 f oot cent er l i ne on t he pr oposed

t ower . " GMR f ur t her pr ovi ded an August 27, 2013, l et t er wr i t t en on

T- Mobi l e l et t er head conf i r mi ng t hat t he mer ger cl osed on May 1,

2013. The l et t er went on t o st at e t hat t her e was st i l l a

si gni f i cant gap i n T- Mobi l e' s wi r el ess cover age at and ar ound t he

Si t e and t hat , accor di ng t o r adi o f r equency t est i ng, i t s ant enna

must be mount ed no l ower t han 117 f eet i n order t o r emedy t he gap.

GMR al so resubmi t t ed ear l i er af f i davi t s f r om Dr oui n

descr i bi ng t he Si t e and expl ai ni ng t hat GMR r evi ewed possi bl e

al t er nat i ve sol ut i ons and si t es, but t hat t her e ar e no f easi bl e

al t er nat i ves t o const r uct i ng a cel l phone t ower at t he Si t e. The

af f i davi t s al so i ndi cat ed t hat i n or der t o obt ai n a l ease on t he

Si t e, GMR had t o agr ee t o i nst al l a camera- - whi ch "must " be mount ed

at a hei ght of 90 f eet - - f or t he Massachuset t s Hi ghway Depart ment .

GMR concl uded wi t h a r equest f or an i nj unct i on r equi r i ng Mi l t on " t o

i ssue al l permi t s necessary t o const r uct a PWCF on GMR' s Si t e at

t he hei ght necessar y t o cl ose the exi st i ng cover age gaps. "

The summar y j udgment r ecor d cont ai ned addi t i onal evi dence

r el evant t o t he t ower ' s r equi r ed hei ght . GMR had pr evi ousl y

submi t t ed an undat ed expert r epor t aut hored by a r adi o f r equency

-12-


13/27

engi neer , Scot t Hef f er nan, whi ch opi ned t o t he exi st ence of a "ver y

si gni f i cant gap" i n T- Mobi l e' s wi r el ess cover age i n t he ar ea ar ound

t he Si t e. GMR' s exper t i ndi cat ed t hat a "pr opagat i on anal ysi s" had

been per f ormed, and i t conf i r med t hat mount i ng an ant enna at a

hei ght of 120 f eet woul d el i mi nat e t he si gni f i cant gap i n T-

Mobi l e' s cover age. 3 The di st r i ct cour t al so had avai l abl e f or i t s

consi der at i on excer pt s of Hef f er nan' s deposi t i on, at whi ch he

t est i f i ed t hat an ant enna mount ed at 90 f eet woul d be hi gh enough

t o el i mi nat e t he cover age gap. Fi nal l y, one of Dr oui n' s af f i davi t s

descr i bed a "cr ane t est " done t o det er mi ne t he t ower ' s vi si bi l i t y

f r om near by l ocat i ons, whi ch showed t hat "onl y the t op t went y f eet

of t he pr oposed 140- f oot t ower woul d be vi si bl e ar ound t he t r ee

l i ne f r om t he sur r oundi ng ar eas. "

Mi l t on submi t t ed i t s own suppl ement al br i ef as wel l .

Mi l t on di d not speci f i cal l y cont est any of t he f act ual

r epr esent at i ons that we j ust ment i oned. Mi l t on t ook a di f f er ent

t ack i nst ead, ar gui ng t hat Met r oPCS no l onger had a si gni f i cant gap

i n i t s cover age i n l i ght of t he mer ger and t he ant i ci pat ed

"mi gr at i on" of Met r oPCS cust omer s to t he T- Mobi l e net work. Wi t h

r espect t o T- Mobi l e US, Mi l t on argued t hat t her e was no l onger any

need f or a 140- f oot t ower , as t he request ed hei ght had been

3 A "pr opagat i on anal ysi s, " accor di ng t o t he exper t r epor t ,uses comput er sof t ware t hat "cal cul at es f r equency st r engt h overdi st ance t aki ng i nt o account geogr aphi cal and t opogr aphi calf eat ur es t hat cont r i but e t o si gnal l oss" t o det er mi ne t he expect edarea of cover age pr ovi ded by an ant enna at a gi ven hei ght .

-13-


14/27

di ct at ed ent i r el y by Met r oPCS' s r equi r ement s. Mi l t on' s posi t i on

was t hat t he 140- f oot t ower was no l onger necessary t o cl ose t he

cover age gap, meani ng t hat t he BOA' s and MCC' s deni al s di d not

ef f ect i vel y pr ohi bi t T- Mobi l e US f r ompr ovi di ng wi r el ess ser vi ce i n

Mi l t on. 4

Bot h par t i es submi t t ed thei r suppl ement al br i ef s and

at t ached exhi bi t s on August 30, 2013. The di st r i ct cour t i ssued

i t s wr i t t en deci si on appr oxi mat el y one week l at er and wi t hout

f ur t her hear i ng.

Of si gni f i cance f or t hi s appeal , t he di str i ct cour t f i r st

concl uded t hat GMR "has shown as a mat t er of l aw t hat i n Fal l 2009,

t her e wer e si gni f i cant gaps i n Met r oPCS and [ T- Mobi l e US] cover age

i n t he af f ect ed ar ea, and no f easi bl e al t er nat i ve exi st ed f or

r esol vi ng t he Met r oPCS coverage gap ot her t han a 140- f oot t ower at

t he Si t e. " The di st r i ct cour t reasoned t hat i f i t s ef f ecti ve

pr ohi bi t i on anal ysi s t ook i nt o account onl y t hose f act s i n

exi st ence at t he t i me t he BOA and MCC deni ed GMR' s appl i cat i on, GMR

"woul d be ent i t l ed t o summary j udgment agai nst bot h boar ds. "

The di st r i ct cour t di d not end i t s i nqui r y t here, but

i nst ead det er mi ned i t shoul d al so consi der subsequent devel opment s

t o deci de whet her Mi l t on had ef f ect i vel y pr ohi bi t ed wi r el ess

ser vi ces. The cour t f i r st f ound t hat even af t er t he mer ger , a

4 Mi l t on al so i nt i mated t hat T- Mobi l e US may no l onger even bei nt er est ed i n t he Si t e f ol l owi ng t he mer ger . Thi s ar gument hasbeen abandoned on appeal .

-14-


15/27

si gni f i cant gap r emai ned i n T- Mobi l e US' s cover age ar ound t he Si t e.

I t f ur t her f ound t hat "t her e ar e no f easi bl e al t er nat i ve l ocat i ons

f or t he pr oposed t ower " apar t f r om t he Si t e. The cour t f el t ,

t hough, t hat GMR no l onger needed t o rect i f y Met r oPCS' s cover age

gap t hanks to t he mer ger . I t r ecount ed t he evi dence i n t he r ecord

i ndi cat i ng t hat T- Mobi l e US' s gap coul d be sol ved wi t h a 117- f oot

or 120- f oot t ower , ul t i mat el y concl udi ng t hat a shor t er t ower at

t he Si t e i s a r easonabl e al t er nat i ve t o t he or i gi nal 140- f oot

pr oposal . The cour t t hen f ound t hat t he exi st ence of t hi s

al t er nat i ve necessar i l y meant t hat t he BOA' s and MCC' s deni al s di d

not ef f ecti vel y pr ohi bi t t he pr ovi si on of wi r el ess ser vi ces.

Fi nal l y, t he cour t noted t hat t here was no evi dence showi ng t he BOA

or MCC woul d be pr edi sposed t o ref usi ng a new appl i cat i on f or a

shor t er t ower .

When al l was sai d and done, t he cour t deni ed GMR' s mot i on

f or summary j udgment , grant ed Mi l t on' s mot i on, and ent ered j udgment

i n f avor of Mi l t on. Thi s t i mel y appeal f ol l owed.

II.

DISCUSSION

a. Standard of Review

We ar e cal l ed upon t o r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

di sposi t i on of t he par t i es' cr oss- mot i ons f or summar y j udgment .

Cr oss- mot i ons f or summary j udgment r equi r e t he di st r i ct cour t t o

"consi der each mot i on separ at el y, dr awi ng al l i nf er ences i n f avor

-15-


16/27

of each non- movi ng par t y i n t ur n. " D & H Therapy Assocs. , LLC v.

Bost on Mut . Li f e I ns. Co. , 640 F. 3d 27, 34 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( ci t i ng

Mer chant s I ns. Co. of N. H. , I nc. v. U. S. Fi d. & Guar . Co. , 143 F. 3d

5, 7 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) ) ; but see Puer t o Ri co Am. I ns. Co. v. Ri ver a-

Vazquez, 603 F. 3d 125, 133 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( not i ng t hat when

"cr oss- mot i ons f or summary j udgment are f i l ed si mul t aneousl y, or

near l y so, t he di st r i ct cour t or di nar i l y shoul d consi der t he t wo

mot i ons at t he same t i me, " but t hat shoul d i t i nst ead "opt t o

consi der t hem at di f f er ent t i mes, i t must at t he ver y l east appl y

t he same st andards t o each") .

Our r evi ew of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s resol ut i on of t he

compet i ng mot i ons i s de novo. Sch. Uni on No. 37 v. Uni t ed Nat ' l

I ns. Co. , 617 F. 3d 554, 558 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) . We wi l l af f i r m a

gr ant of summary j udgment "onl y i f t he record di scl oses no genui ne

i ssue as t o any mat er i al f act and t he movi ng par t y i s ent i t l ed t o

j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. " Tr opi gas de Puer t o Ri co, I nc. v.

Cer t ai n Under wr i t er s at Ll oyd' s of London, 637 F. 3d 53, 56 ( 1st

Ci r . 2011) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Genui ne i ssues of f act ar e t hose

t hat a f act f i nder coul d r esol ve i n f avor of t he nonmovant , whi l e

mat er i al f act s ar e t hose whose "exi st ence or nonexi st ence has t he

pot ent i al t o change t he out come of t he sui t . " I d. ( ci t at i ons and

i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . We al so bear i n mi nd t hat j ust

because each par t y has moved f or summary j udgment , t hi s "do[ es] not

necessar i l y i ndi cat e agr eement by the par t i es as t o t he mat er i al

-16-


17/27

f act s i n t he r ecor d. " ATC Real t y, LLC v. Town of Ki ngst on, N. H. ,

303 F. 3d 91, 99 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) .

b. The Telecommunications Act of 1996

We begi n wi t h an over vi ew of t he r el evant pr ovi si ons of

t he Tel ecommuni cat i ons Act . The Act , we have sai d, r epr esent s "an

exer ci se i n cooper at i ve f eder al i sm . . . [ t hat ] at t empt s, subj ect

t o f i ve l i mi t at i ons, t o pr eser ve st at e and l ocal aut hor i t y over t he

pl acement and const r uct i on of [ t el ecommuni cat i ons] f aci l i t i es. "

Nat ' l Tower , LLC v. Pl ai nvi l l e Zoni ng Bd. of Appeal s, 297 F. 3d 14,

19 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) . The r el evant l i mi t at i on her e i s t he Act ' s

mandat e t hat , " i n regul at i ng t he pl acement and const r uct i on of

[ wi r el ess] f aci l i t i es, a st at e or l ocal gover nment or

i nst r ument al i t y ' shal l not pr ohi bi t or have t he ef f ect of

pr ohi bi t i ng t he pr ovi si on of per sonal wi r el ess ser vi ces. ' " I d.

( quot i ng 47 U. S. C. 332( c) ( 7) ( B) ( i ) ( I I ) ) . I t i s wel l - establ i shed

i n t hi s Ci r cui t t hat "l ocal zoni ng deci si ons . . . t hat pr event t he

cl osi ng of si gni f i cant gaps i n t he avai l abi l i t y of wi r el ess

ser vi ces vi ol at e t he st at ut e. " I d. at 20. Thi s i s t r ue even wher e

a l ocal aut hor i t y' s deni al of an i ndi vi dual appl i cat i on pur suant t o

i t s own l ocal or di nances i s suppor t ed by subst ant i al evi dence. I d.

The quest i on of whether or not a l ocal deni al const i t ut es

an ef f ect i ve pr ohi bi t i on vi ol at i ve of t he Act i s def i ni t i vel y

answer ed by t he di st r i ct cour t , not t he l ocal zoni ng aut hor i t y.

I d. at 22. I ndeed, not hi ng i n t he Tel ecommuni cat i ons Act

-17-


18/27

"expr essl y aut hor i ze[ s] l ocal zoni ng boar ds t o consi der whet her

i ndi vi dual deci si ons amount t o an ' ef f ect i ve pr ohi bi t i on. ' " Second

Gener at i on Props. , L. P. v. Town of Pel ham, 313 F. 3d 620, 630 ( 1st

Ci r . 2002) ( ci t i ng 47 U. S. C. 332( c) ( 7) ) . Accor di ngl y, wher e a

l ocal aut hor i t y pur por t s t o pass upon t he i ssue, t he f eder al cour t s

af f or d i t "[ n] o speci al def er ence. " I d. Because t he i ssue i s

deci ded by t he di st r i ct cour t i n t he f i r st i nst ance, we r evi ew t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on r at her t han t hat of t he l ocal aut hor i t y.

Gr een Mount ai n Real t y, 688 F. 3d at 58.

When conduct i ng t he "ef f ect i ve pr ohi bi t i on" i nqui r y,

di st r i ct cour t s " may wel l r equi r e evi dence t o be pr esent ed i n cour t

t hat i s out si de of t he admi ni st r at i ve r ecor d compi l ed by t he l ocal

aut hor i t y. " Nat ' l Tower , 297 F. 3d at 22 ( ci t i ng Town of Amher st ,

N. H. v. Omni poi nt Commc' ns Ent er s. , I nc. , 173 F. 3d 9, 16 n. 7 ( 1st

Ci r . 1999) ) . To t hat end, t hey ar e "f r ee t o consi der addi t i onal

evi dence" beyond t hat whi ch was i nt r oduced at t he l ocal l evel .

Second Generat i on Props. , 313 F. 3d at 629. I ndeed, when we

r emanded t hi s case t o t he di st r i ct cour t t o deci de t he ef f ect i ve

pr ohi bi t i on i ssue, we expl i ci t l y l ef t i t wi t hi n "t he di scr et i on of

t he di st r i ct cour t whet her t o eval uat e t he cl ai ms on t he [ t hen-

cur r ent ] r ecor d or al l ow t he par t i es t o submi t addi t i onal

evi dence. " Gr een Mount ai n Real t y, 688 F. 3d at 60.

Upon r emand, t he di st r i ct cour t order ed t wo rounds of

suppl ement al br i ef i ng bef or e maki ng addi t i onal f i ndi ngs of f act ,

-18-


19/27

denyi ng GMR' s mot i on f or summary j udgment , and grant i ng Mi l t on' s

mot i on f or summary j udgment . When t he di st r i ct cour t grant s

summary j udgment on an ef f ect i ve pr ohi bi t i on cl ai m, our r evi ew of

t hat deci si on i s de novo. Nat ' l Tower , 297 F. 3d at 22. Wher e,

however , t he di st r i ct cour t t akes new evi dence and makes i t s own

evi dent i ar y f i ndi ngs as par t of t he pr ocess, we r evi ew "i t s f act ual

f i ndi ngs f or cl ear er r or and i t s l egal concl usi ons de novo. " I d.

c. Analysis

Our pr evi ous opi ni on i n 2012 r emanded t hi s mat t er f or t he

di st r i ct cour t t o consi der GMR' s ef f ecti ve pr ohi bi t i on cl ai ms. I n

t hat r egar d, when i t consi der ed t he par t i es' cr oss- mot i ons f or

summar y j udgment , t he di st r i ct cour t f ocused excl usi vel y on t he

mer ger ' s el i mi nat i on of Met r oPCS' s cover age gap. Speci f i cal l y, t he

cour t f ound t hat Met r oPCS no l onger has a si gni f i cant gap i n i t s

cover age because al l of i t s cust omer s are sl at ed t o be t aken of f

i t s net wor k and f ol ded i nt o T- Mobi l e' s by t he end of 2015. The

di st r i ct cour t t hen r easoned t hat , i n l i ght of t hi s new devel opment

whi ch had not been i n t he car ds back i n 2009, t he BOA' s and MCC' s

deni al of t he t ower appl i cat i on di d not ef f ect i vel y pr ohi bi t

Met r oPCS f r om pr ovi di ng wi r el ess ser vi ces i n Mi l t on.

Al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t addr essed t he ef f ect i ve

pr ohi bi t i on cl ai mwi t h r espect t o Met r oPCS, i t di d not consi der t he

changed ci r cumst ances f r om t he per spect i ve of T- Mobi l e US. From

t he r ecor d, i t appear s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t f el t t hat once i t

-19-


20/27

det er mi ned Met r oPCS' s si gni f i cant gap was no l onger i n pl ay, i t had

no need t o i nqui r e f ur t her . By not l ooki ng deeper , however , t he

di st r i ct cour t f ai l ed t o det er mi ne whet her t he 2009 deni al s

vi ol at ed t he Tel ecommuni cat i ons Act by "pr event [ i ng] t he cl osi ng of

si gni f i cant gaps i n t he avai l abi l i t y of wi r el ess ser vi ces" pr ovi ded

by T- Mobi l e US. Nat ' l Tower , 297 F. 3d at 20. Fai l ur e t o

adj udi cat e t hi s aspect of t he cl ai m const i t ut ed an er r or of l aw.

See Omni poi nt Hol di ngs, I nc. v. Ci t y of Cr anst on, 586 F. 3d 38, 49

( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( r ecogni zi ng t hat ef f ect i ve pr ohi bi t i on cl ai ms must

be eval uat ed f r om t he st andpoi nt of "t he i ndi vi dual car r i er ' s

net work") ; Second Gener at i on Props. , 313 F. 3d at 634 ( "The f act

t hat some carr i er provi des some servi ce t o some consumers does not

i n i t sel f mean t hat t he t own has not ef f ect i vel y pr ohi bi t ed

ser vi ces t o ot her consumer s. " ) .

Because we may af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of

summary j udgment on any basi s apparent i n t he r ecord, Rodr i guez v.

Muni ci pal i t y of San J uan, 659 F. 3d 168, 179 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) , t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s er r or does not , by i t sel f , r equi r e r ever sal . We

must now consi der whet her t he uncont est ed f act s i n t he summary

j udgment r ecor d ent i t l ed Mi l t on t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw.

They di d not .

I n order t o wi t hst and Mi l t on' s mot i on, GMR needed t o come

f or war d wi t h evi dence t hat woul d al l ow a f i nder of f act t o concl ude

-20-


21/27

t hat t he 2009 deni al s had t he ef f ect of pr ohi bi t i ng T- Mobi l e US

f r om pr ovi di ng wi r el ess ser vi ce ar ound Exi t 3.

Whet her or not an ef f ect i ve pr ohi bi t i on has occur r ed

depends on each case' s uni que f act s and ci r cumst ances, and "t her e

can be no gener al r ul e cl assi f yi ng what i s an ef f ect i ve

pr ohi bi t i on. " Second Gener at i on Props. , 313 F. 3d at 630. We have,

however , di scussed cer t ai n "ci r cumst ances wher e t her e i s a

prohi bi t i on ' i n ef f ect . ' " I d. " [ W] here t he pl ai nt i f f ' s exi st i ng

appl i cat i on i s the onl y f easi bl e pl an . . . deni al of t he

pl ai nt i f f ' s appl i cat i on mi ght amount t o pr ohi bi t i ng per sonal

wi r el ess ser vi ce. " I d. ( ci t at i ons and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . I n at t empt i ng t o show t hat l ocal aut hor i t i es have

r ej ect ed t he onl y f easi bl e pl an, a car r i er bear s "t he ' heavy'

bur den ' t o show f r om t he l anguage and ci r cumst ances not j ust t hat

t hi s appl i cat i on has been r ej ect ed but t hat f ur t her r easonabl e

ef f or t s [ t o f i nd anot her sol ut i on] ar e so l i kel y t o be f r ui t l ess

t hat i t i s a wast e of t i me even t o t r y. ' " Ci t y of Cr anst on, 586

F. 3d at 50 ( emphasi s and al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Town of

Amherst , 173 F. 3d at 14) . 5

5 We al so r ecogni zed i n Second Gener at i on Proper t i es t hat anef f ect i ve pr ohi bi t i on occur s wher e a " t own set s or admi ni st er scr i t er i a whi ch ar e i mpossi bl e f or any appl i cant t o meet . " 313 F. 3dat 630. GMR does not argue t hat t hi s i s what happened her e.

-21-


22/27

Turni ng t o t he summar y j udgment r ecor d here, i t i s

appar ent t hat t he vast maj or i t y of f act s are undi sput ed. 6 The

di st r i ct cour t f ound- - and t he par t i es do not cont est - - t hat t her e

r emai ns a si gni f i cant gap i n T- Mobi l e US' s ser vi ce i n t he ar ea

ar ound Exi t 3 i n spi t e of t he mer ger . Fur t her , Mi l t on does not

chal l enge t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ng t hat t he Si t e i s t he onl y

f easi bl e l ocat i on on whi ch t o const r uct a cel l phone t ower t o f i l l

i n T- Mobi l e US' s si gni f i cant cover age gap. I ndeed, counsel

conceded as much at oral argument . Thus, we hol d t hat t he evi dence

est abl i shed t hat , as a mat t er of l aw, t he onl y f easi bl e sol ut i on t o

T- Mobi l e US' s cover age gap i s t he const r uct i on of a cel l phone

t ower on t he Si t e.

The onl y r emai ni ng quest i on of f act i s t he preci se t ower

hei ght r equi r ed t o el i mi nat e t he si gni f i cant cover age gap. On t hat

f r ont , t her e was evi dence i n t he recor d- - none of whi ch Mi l t on

6 The par t i es spend consi derabl e t i me and energy argui ng aboutwhet her t he di st r i ct cour t was bound t o deci de the ef f ect i vepr ohi bi t i on cl ai m based on t he f act s as t hey exi st ed at t he t i meGMR f i r st appl i ed t o const r uct a 140- f oot t ower , or whet her i t wasper mi ssi bl e f or t he cour t t o consi der changed, post - mer gerci r cumst ances bear i ng on t he cont i nued exi st ence of a si gni f i cantcoverage gap. Thi s t ur ns out t o be much ado about not hi ng,however , as GMR conceded i n i t s suppl ement al br i ef t o t he di st r i ctcour t i n August 2013 t hat t he cour t had di scr et i on t o consi der t hecur r ent l ay of t he l and i n l i ght of t he mer ger . Mor eover , t he

r el i ef GMR r equest s on appeal - - an i nj unct i on r equi r i ng Mi l t on t oper mi t const r uct i on of a 120- f oot t ower - - i s i t sel f pr edi cat ed ont he changed ci r cumst ances resul t i ng f r omt he mer ger . Accor di ngl y,GMR has wai ved any ar gument t hat t he di st r i ct cour t was l i mi t ed t oconsi der i ng t he f act s as t hey exi st ed at t he t i me i t s appl i cat i onwas deni ed. See Uni t ed St ates v. Zanni no, 895 F. 2d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r .1990) .

-22-


23/27

cont est s- - t hat an antenna must be mounted at some hei ght bet ween 90

and 120 f eet t o el i mi nate T- Mobi l e US' s cover age gap. We f ur t her

not e t he exi st ence of evi dence t hat t he Massachuset t s Hi ghway

Depar t ment ' s camera "must " be mounted at a hei ght of 90 f eet , and

i t appear s f r om Mi l t on' s appel l at e br i ef t hat i t has conceded a

wi r el ess ant enna woul d have t o be mount ed at a hei ght of at l east

100 f eet . See Def s. - Appel l ee' s Br . at 10 ( "The l owest ant enna

mount i ng hei ght f or a wi r el ess car r i er woul d be at 100- f eet . ") .

The evi dence i n t he r ecor d was suf f i ci ent t o al l ow a r easonabl e

f i nder of f act t o concl ude t hat Mi l t on' s deni al s ef f ecti vel y

pr event ed T- Mobi l e US f r om cl osi ng i t s cover age gap i n t he ar ea

near Exi t 3, i n cont r avent i on of t he Tel ecommuni cat i ons Act .

Accordi ngl y, Mi l t on was not ent i t l ed t o summary j udgment , and t he

di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n so f i ndi ng. 7

We have consi dered Mi l t on' s ar gument s t o t he cont r ary and

we ar e not convi nced. Mi l t on f i r st asser t s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

pr oper l y grant ed i t s mot i on f or summary j udgment because GMR f ai l ed

t o show t hat t he or i gi nal l y- pr oposed 140- f oot t ower i s t he "onl y

f easi bl e pl an" i n l i ght of t he mer ger bet ween T- Mobi l e and

Met r oPCS, as Met r oPCS no l onger has a si gni f i cant gap i n cover age.

Mi l t on f ur t her ar gues t hat GMR shoul d be r equi r ed t o r et ur n t o t he

BOA and MCC wi t h a br and new appl i cat i on f or a shor t er cel l phone

7 Because t her e was evi dence t hat t he cover age gap coul d havebeen r ect i f i ed by mor e t han one t ower hei ght , i t f ol l ows t hat GMRwas not ent i t l ed t o summary j udgment on i t s own cr oss- mot i on.

-23-


24/27

t ower . These argument s, however , are based on t he mi st aken premi se

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y gr ant ed Mi l t on' s summar y j udgment

mot i on, and compl et el y i gnor e t he ef f ect i ve pr ohi bi t i on cl ai mwi t h

r espect t o T- Mobi l e US. We, t her ef or e, r ej ect t hem. Si mpl y put ,

Mi l t on has done nothi ng t o under mi ne our concl usi on t hat a

r easonabl e f i nder of f act coul d have f ound f r omt he evi dence i n t he

r ecor d t hat Mi l t on' s deni al s ef f ect i vel y pr ohi bi t ed T- Mobi l e US

f r om pr ovi di ng wi r el ess ser vi ce i n t he ar ea ar ound Exi t 3.

d. Some Final Thoughts

So t hat nei t her t he par t i es nor t he di st r i ct cour t wi l l

be l ed ast r ay, we addr ess Mi l t on' s i nt i mat i on t hat t he BOA and/ or

MCC shoul d have an addi t i onal opport uni t y t o wei gh i n on t he

t ower ' s ul t i mate hei ght . Such an out come woul d not be i n

accor dance wi t h t he t ext or spi r i t of t he Tel ecommuni cat i ons Act .

What we sai d about t he Act i n Nat i onal Tower over a decade ago

bears r epeat i ng her e:

The st at ut or y r equi r ements t hat t he board actwi t hi n ' a r easonabl e per i od of t i me, ' and t hatt he revi ewi ng cour t hear and deci de t he act i on' on an expedi t ed basi s, ' i ndi cat e t hatCongr ess di d not i nt end mul t i pl e r ounds ofdeci si ons and l i t i gat i on, i n whi ch a cour tr ej ect s one reason and t hen gi ves t he boar dt he oppor t uni t y, i f i t chooses, t o pr of f eranot her . I nst ead, i n t he maj or i t y of casest he pr oper r emedy f or a zoni ng boar d deci si ont hat vi ol at es t he Act wi l l be an or der . . .i nst r uct i ng t he boar d t o aut hor i zeconstr uct i on. . . . I n shor t , a boar d' sdeci si on may not pr esent a movi ng t arget and aboar d wi l l not or di nar i l y r ecei ve a secondchance.

-24-


25/27

Nat ' l Tower , 297 F. 3d at 21- 22.

Our concer n i n Nat i onal Tower about "mul t i pl e rounds of

deci si ons" i s even st r onger her e, as t he recor d evi dence

demonst r at es t hat t he l ocal boar ds woul d be compel l ed t o permi t

const r uct i on of a cel l phone t ower on t he Si t e. Ther e i s no

genui ne di sput e t hat T- Mobi l e US cont i nues t o have a si gni f i cant

cover age gap i n t hat ar ea, t hat t he Si t e i s t he onl y f easi bl e

l ocat i on t o const r uct a new t ower , and t hat t he tower must be

somewher e between 90 and 120 f eet hi gh i n or der t o f i l l i n that

gap. And t he r esol ut i on of t he onl y r emai ni ng quest i on- - t he

t ower ' s hei ght - - i s f or t he di st r i ct cour t , not t he BOA or t he MCC,

t o answer . I d. at 22; Ci t y of Cr anst on, 586 F. 3d at 52.

Fur t her mor e, t her e i s no j ust i f i cat i on f or f ur t her hear i ngs on t he

l ocal l evel gi ven t hat t he onl y i ssue t o be r esol ved i s a l i mi t ed

one t o be r esol ved by t he di st r i ct j udge. See Br ehmer v. Pl anni ng

Bd. of Town of Wel l f l eet , 238 F. 3d 117, 121 ( 1st Ci r . 2001)

( "Fi nal l y, appel l ant s have i dent i f i ed no pr acti cal benef i t t o

sendi ng the mat t er back t o t he Pl anni ng Boar d i n order t o have that

body hol d a hear i ng dest i ned t o r esul t i n t he i ssuance of t he

speci al per mi t . ") ; see al so Ci t y of Cr anst on, 586 F. 3d at 52- 53

( "Ul t i mat el y t he quest i on i s a pr acti cal i nqui r y i nt o f easi bl e,

avai l abl e al t er nat i ves. ") .

Here, t he BOA and t he MCC have al r eady had t hei r say. I n

f act , we det er mi ned thei r r easons f or deni al wer e suppor t ed by

-25-


26/27

subst ant i al evi dence. Never t hel ess, t hese deni al s must gi ve way i n

l i ght of t he evi dence t hat t hey ef f ect i vel y pr ohi bi t ed T- Mobi l e US

f r om pr ovi di ng wi r el ess ser vi ces i n der ogat i on of f eder al l aw.

Accor di ngl y, t her e i s not hi ng el se f or Mi l t on t o deci de i n t hi s

mat t er , and t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d r esol ve t he ef f ect i ve

pr ohi bi t i on cl ai m wi t hi n t he cont our s set f or t h i n t hi s opi ni on.

See Nat ' l Tower , 297 F. 3d at 22; Ci t y of Cr anst on, 586 F. 3d at 52

( "Whet her t he car r i er pr oves an ef f ect i ve pr ohi bi t i on has occur r ed

i s a f act ual quest i on f or t he t r i al court t o resol ve. " ) . I t i s

al so i ncumbent upon t he di st r i ct cour t t o cr af t an appr opr i at e

r emedy i n l i ght of t he speci f i c f act s and ci r cumst ances appear i ng

i n t he r ecor d.

III.

CONCLUSION

Gi ven t he exi st ence of t he one remai ni ng i ssue of

mat er i al f act , i . e. , t he necessary hei ght of t he t ower , we must

r emand t hi s mat t er t o the di st r i ct cour t f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs

wi t h r espect t o GMR' s ef f ect i ve pr ohi bi t i on cl ai m. To r esol ve t he

cl ai m, t he di st r i ct cour t - - not t he BOA, MCC, or any ot her or gan of

Mi l t on' s t own gover nment - - i s t o det er mi ne whet her t he t ower ' s

hei ght need be 90 f eet , 117 f eet , 120 f eet , or somet hi ng i n

bet ween, i n or der t o r emedy t he ef f ect i ve pr ohi bi t i on of wi r el ess

servi ces caused by t he BOA' s and MCC' s deni al of GMR' s appl i cat i on

t o bui l d a cel l phone t ower . See Nat ' l Tower , 297 F. 3d at 22. I n

-26-


27/27

accor dance wi t h 47 U. S. C. 332( 7) ( B) ( v) , t he di st r i ct cour t i s

di r ect ed t o hear and deci de t hi s mat t er on an expedi t ed basi s.

To sum up: we affirm t he di str i ct cour t ' s deni al of

GMR' s mot i on f or summar y j udgment , reverse i t s gr ant of summary

j udgment i n f avor of Mi l t on, vacate t he j udgment ent ered i n f avor

of Mi l t on, and remand t hi s mat t er f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs

consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on.

-27-

Green Mountain Realty Corp. v. Leonard, 1st Cir. (2014)

Documents

Transcript of Green Mountain Realty Corp. v. Leonard, 1st Cir. (2014)