02/04/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I " I I ,I I I 1 I ,(") ; ; i I I I I I I I i I , I \. I i Zoning Bulletin December 10, 20091 Volume 31 No. 23 () and Omnipoint's expert had testified that there was a gap in cover- age on this road because signal levels fell below Omnipoint's self- imposed minimum signal strength. The court found that no credible evidence contradicted this premise; and the premise was "reasonable on its face." The court also found thai Omnipoint met its burden of showing "that further reasonable efforts to find another alternative solution [to the coverage ,gap] [were] likely to be fruitless." Its proposal to construct a tower on the church's site was the "only feasible way" to close, the coverage gap. Omnipoint had: taken two years to con- sider "different types of solutions"; and showed'it had made a fi- nancial offer significantly above its usual rates to lease land at an alternative site (i.e., the country club) but was "unsuccessful." On the other hand, the city had failed to show that any of the alterna- tives ~tproposed were "feasible." Having f01.lnd there was a significant gap' in coverage and that the site and tower proposed by Omnipoint was the only feasible op- tion for closing that gap, the court concluded that the city's denial of Omnipoint's applications "effectively prohibited" Omnipoint's provision of persona.l wireless services in violation of the TCA. See also: Second Generation Properties, L.P. v. Town of Pelham, 313 R3d 620 (1st Cir. 2002). See also: Town of Amherst, N,H. v. Omnipoint Communications Enterprises, Inc., 173 R3d 9 (1st Cir. 1999). . (:J Case Note: The city had argued that the Board's decision to deny Omnipoint's applications could not be appealed to fed- eral court because it was not a "final action" under the TCA. It said that although zoning board decisions usually would be such "final actions" under the TCA, a Rhode Island law cre- , ated an exception to that rule. Specifically, the city maintained that because a state law permitted state court review of zoning board decisions, the Board's aecision would not be "final" un- til after a state court review. The court rejected this argument, saying such a reading of the law would "frustrate" the TCA's goals of speedily deploying telecommunications and getting prompt resolution of disputes under the TCA. A zoning board's decision, held the court; is a "final action" under the TCA, ap- pealable to federal court. @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 7 I . I 69