Crown Castle Expects to Seek Summary Judgment vs. Town of Oyster Bay

Crown Castle seeks a pre-motion conference to devise an “expedited briefing schedule” for its anticipated motion for summary judgment in its nearly year-old Telecommunications Act (TCA) infrastructure complaint against the town of Oyster Bay, New York, the company wrote U.S. District Judge Joan Azrack for Eastern New York in Central Islip Monday (docket 2:21-cv-06305). Crown Castle sued the town in November 2021 alleging TCA statutory violations.

Crown Castle for more than six years has sought approvals from Oyster Bay to install small wireless facilities (SWFs) in the public rights of way, it told the judge. A SWF consists of small antennas and equipment contained in an enclosure a few cubic feet in volume and is mounted on utility poles “as an alternative to the installation of a large cellular tower,” to remedy “significant gaps in reliable wireless services” or to add capacity in high demand areas, it said.

The TCA “bars state or local statutes, regulations, or other legal requirements that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service,” said Crown Castle. Yet Oyster Bay’s zoning board has denied Crown Castle's request to install 23 SWFs “without substantial evidence contained in a written record,” as Section 332 of the statute requires, it said.

Summary judgment is “proper” on each of Crown Castle's claims against Oyster Bay, the company told the judge. Section 332 requires that a court must overturn a town's decision to deny a personal wireless service facility application if it can’t conscientiously find that the evidence supporting that decision is substantial, said Crown Castle. Oyster Bay’s denial of the SWFs is based on three claims “that are not supported by substantial evidence." The town, it said, falsely accuses Crown Castle of failures on three fronts: (1) showing a need for the SWFs; (2) evaluating alternative locations or technologies; and (3) minimizing the aesthetic impacts of the SWFs. Oyster Bay officials didn't respond Tuesday to emailed requests for comment.

Crown Castle in fact submitted “on the record extensive and unrefuted documentation” showing that the SWFs are necessary to increase coverage and capacity to provide reliable wireless service over a five-square-mile portion of the town that’s home to about 10,000 residents, it told the judge. It also told the town there are “no feasible alternatives” to the SWFs, and the SWFs “would not result in significant aesthetic or visual impacts or alter the primarily residential land use setting,” it said. The SWFs “are the least intrusive means to remedy a significant gap in services,” it said.