Plaintiff sought to vacate the zoning board of appeals’ decision to deny an application for a zoning permit for a wireless communications tower. Plaintiff argued that the application denial was not supported by “substantial evidence,” and has the practical effect of “prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services” in contravention of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The court agreed with the plaintiffs that the ZBA’s decision was not supported by “substantial evidence” because it made its decision using federal standards and not town by-laws. Further, the court held that plaintiffs made an adequate showing that there was a significant gap in wireless coverage in the area which was subject to the permit, and there were no feasible alternatives for a tower in the area. Thus, the ZBA was ordered to issue the permits.
Indus. Tower & Wireless, LLC v. Haddad, 2015 WL 2365560, (D. Mass. 5/18/2015)