360 Communications Co. of Charlottesville v. Bd. of Supervisors of Albemarle County – Case Brief Summary (Federal Court)

360 Communications Co. of Charlottesville v. Bd. of Supervisors of Albemarle County - Case Brief Summary (Federal Court)

In 360 Communications Co. of Charlottesville v. Bd. of Supervisors of Albemarle County, 211 F.3d 79 , 86 (4th Cir. 2000), the wireless provider and the local governing body filed cross-motions for summary judgment. 211 F.3d at 83.

The Court reversed the district court’s decision granting the provider’s motion on its prohibition claim, concluding that the provider failed to meet its heavy burden under 47 U.S.C. section (B)(i)(II).

The Court explained that the record was unclear regarding whether there was an absence of ser- vice in a particular part of the county. Id. at 87-88.

The Court further stated that, even assuming the existence of cognizable gaps in coverage, the record contained insufficient evidence to estab- lish whether there were alternative locations available for the proposed wireless facilities. Id. at 88.

Additionally, we observed that the record showed that the local governing body had approved numerous applications for other wireless facilities, including several filed by the pro- vider asserting a violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Id.

Thus, we concluded that the provider failed to meet its heavy burden to show that the denial of its permit for a particular site amounted to a gen- eral prohibition of service. Id. In Albemarle County, the wireless provider had acknowledged there were alternative sites, and had failed to provide evidence that those alterna- tives were not "feasible." 211 F.3d at 82.