• On August 9, 2012, the First Circuit Court of Appeals partially vacated a district court’s dismissal of the complaint filed by Green Mountain Realty Corp. against the Town of Milton Zoning Board of Appeals and the Milton Conservation Commission for their denial of Green Mountain’s request to build a 140-foot cellular tower. The appeals court agreed with the district court that those state bodies relied on “substantial evidence” in denying Green Mountain’s request for the applicable permits, as required by 47 U.S.C. § 332, but found that the district court “did not adequately address Green Mountain’s evidence” supporting its claim that the state bodies’ denials amounted to an “effective prohibition” against on the provision of wireless services in that area, which can also violate Section 332 of the Communications Act. The court noted that the “effective prohibition standard can be violated even if substantial evidence exists to support the denial of an individual permit under the terms of the town’s ordinances.” Proving “effective prohibition” requires a showing that there was a coverage gap, and “that denial of an application effectively prohibits all wireless service in the area.” To do that, “Green Mountain submitted affidavits before the district court from its own president, as well as from the owner and manager of an independent consulting company hired to aid Green Mountain in the permitting process. These affidavits described efforts to identify alternative sites and explained why the sites suggested by local residents were unacceptable.” But the appeals court found that the trial “court failed to consider the evidence submitted by Green Mountain documenting its attempts to locate and evaluate alternative sites.” For that reason, the appeals court remanded the case back to the district court. Green Mountain Realty Corp. v. Leonard, No. 11-1706 (1st Cir.).