N.Y. Village Unlawfully Delayed and Denied Cell Tower Application, Alleges T-Mobile

Chestnut Ridge, New York, about 30 miles northwest of midtown Manhattan, violated Section 704 of the Communications Act through its “unreasonable and unsupportable denials” of T-Mobile’s applications to build a 105-foot monopole cell tower, alleged the carrier’s complaint Friday (docket 7:23-cv-05852) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in White Plains. The eight-count complaint seeks a finding that the denials were illegal because they weren’t based on substantial evidence contained in the written record, plus an order mandating that the village “immediately issue T-Mobile all necessary permits and authorizations.”

The village and its boards “have effectively prohibited T-Mobile’s personal wireless services and telecommunications services,” alleged the complaint. They also “unreasonably discriminated” against T-Mobile “in favor of its functionally equivalent competitors,” it said. The village also “unreasonably delayed” T-Mobile’s applications, or failed to support its denials “with written decisions within a reasonable period of time,” it said.

T-Mobile alleges Chestnut Ridge and its boards “illegally based their decisions” on the environmental effects of RF emissions, said the complaint. They also illegally charged T-Mobile fees “that are excessive, unreasonable, unnecessary, prohibitory and in violation of state and federal law,” it said. The village’s conduct warrants injunctive relief mandating that Chestnut Ridge issue all required approvals for the construction of the cell tower, it said.

A significant gap in personal wireless services in Chestnut Ridge would be remedied by installing and operating the cell tower, said T-Mobile’s complaint. The tower “is the least intrusive means to remedy the significant gap in service,” it said. The village’s stonewalling “materially inhibits the provision of telecommunications services and personal wireless services,” it said. The village’s denials are preempted by the Communications Act “and by the regulations and orders of the FCC,” it said.

T-Mobile and Chestnut Ridge agreed at least twice to extend the FCC’s shot clock, most recently to June 20, said the complaint. The village board, “without any deliberation,” took a verbal vote May 18 to deny T-Mobile’s special permit application, it said. Board members read aloud a list of “conclusory statements, without any support,” about the reasons for the denial, it said. The shot clock since expired, and the village is in violation of the Communications Act, it said.

T-Mobile’s written submissions and presentation at the numerous public hearings “provided substantial and uncontroverted evidence” demonstrating its applications “satisfy the criteria and requirements for the requested approvals under both state and federal law,” plus the village code, said the complaint. The administrative record “is devoid of substantial evidence refuting T-Mobile’s evidence” that the applications meet the criteria for the requested approvals, it said.

The administrative record “demonstrates that there were no viable alternatives to remedy the significant gap in service” other than with the proposed cell tower, said T-Mobile. Chestnut Ridge “provided no legitimate reasons for the decisions to unreasonably delay, deny and/or effectively deny” the applications, it said. The village didn’t comment.