by Hannah Dankbar and Gary Taylor
Global Tower Assets, LLC; Northeast Wireless Networks, LLC v. Town of Rome
Federal 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, January 8, 2016
Global Tower Assets and Northeast Wireless Networks obtained a leasehold interest in Rome, Maine. According to Rome’s Ordinance applicants must get permission from Rome Planning Board to build a wireless communication tower.
The Ordinance includes a section that reads, “[a]dministrative appeals and variance applications submitted under this Ordinance shall be subject to the standards and procedures established by the Town of Rome Board of Appeals.”
The companies first asked for permission from the Planning Board to build the tower on April 8, 2013. The Board discussed the proposal on May 20, 2013 and held other meetings over the next few months. On February 10, 2014, the Planning Board voted to deny the application because the application was not complete. On March 10, 2014 the Planning Board published their decision. The decision was sent to the Board of Appeals for Review. The next day, the companies filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maine.
Part of their suit included complaints under the Telecommunications Act (TCA) of 1996. The TCA provides relief to those who are denied permission to build telecommunication facilities at the state or local level trough “final action”. However, the TCA does not define “final action”. In this case, the question is whether the administrative process ended. The companies filed their TCA challenge to the Town of Rome Planning Board’s decision before the decision was reviewed by the local board of appeals. In Maine there is a general requirement that land use and zoning appeals are first heard by a zoning board of appeals before they can be litigated in state court. Thus under Maine law “Rome necessarily made review by the board of appeals a prerequisite to judicial review.” There was an opportunity for the Planning Board’s decision to be overturned through an administrative (rather than judicial) process, meaning that the decision of the Planning Board was not a “final action” within the meaning of the TCA. The legislative history of the TCA does not reject a two-step administrative process at the local level to determine “final actions.” Because the administrative process, as defined by Rome’s Ordinance was not complete the District Court was correct to dismiss the complaints.
