AT&T Opposes Residents’ Intervention in Muttontown Cell Tower Case
The village of Muttontown, New York, and its component boards seek a two-week delay to respond to an order asserting whether they will oppose the Nov. 2 motion to intervene from 30 resident property owners seeking to block AT&T’s construction of a 165-foot-tall cell tower (see 2211030048), said village attorneys in a letter Thursday (docket 2:22-cv-05524) to U.S. Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst for Eastern New York in Central Islip. The village, in a letter to Dunst Friday, also asked for a one-month extension to Dec. 12 to answer AT&T's complaint, citing the residents' motion as one reason for the delay.
AT&T will oppose the 30-resident motion to intervene and suggests it should be heard on the same schedule set by the court to consider the earlier motion filed pro se by resident property owner and practicing attorney Russell McRory, also to block the cell tower, said AT&T lawyers from Faegre Drinker in a separate letter to Dunst Thursday. Briefs in opposition to McRory’s motion are due Dec. 16, and oral argument is scheduled for Jan. 18. Dunst’s Nov. 3 order called for AT&T and Muttontown to confer on a joint response to the motion (see 2211040015), but “we have been informed by the Village Defendants that they do not yet have a position on this issue,” said the AT&T lawyers.
AT&T sued Muttontown on Sept. 15 for an order granting all variances, permits and approvals necessary for the cell tower construction to proceed. Named as defendants in the complaint were the village itself, plus its board of trustees, planning board, site and architectural review board, and zoning board of appeals (ZBA).
The 30 residents, who now include McRory, contend that all but the ZBA, which opposes the cell tower, are colluding with AT&T behind their backs to get the tower approved. An added worry, say the residents, is that the ZBA is represented in the case by the same attorneys who will argue on behalf of the other component boards that the tower’s construction should proceed. McRory’s Oct. 17 memorandum of law supporting his motion to intervene said the multiple plot twists in the case were akin to those in an episode of Game of Thrones. AT&T denies the collusion allegations.
None of the existing parties in the case will “adequately represent” the interests of the resident property owners, said a Nov. 2 memorandum of law in support of the motion to intervene. All the parties “are on the same side and want AT&T’s tower to be built,” except the ZBA, it said. If the village were to resolve the case through mediation or settlement, it would certainly let AT&T install the tower, it said.
The only way the residents would be afforded a “meaningful opportunity to protect their legally protectable rights in their property and their homes” is to intervene in the case and “advocate through their own counsel,” said the memorandum. In lawsuits “contesting the application of zoning restrictions to a particular parcel of land,” federal courts “consistently rule that the owners of adjoining parcels of land are entitled to intervene in an action,” it said.
The resident property owners “meet the requirements for intervention as of right,” said the memorandum. If the court denies the residents intervention as of right, they alternatively “satisfy the standard for permissive intervention,” it said. The residents have “a significant interest” in preventing the installation of the cell tower, it said. The tower would cause “severe aesthetic impacts and would severely reduce the value of their properties,” it said.