Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:19-cv-12333 Document 1 Piled 11/13/19 Page 20 of 21 <br /> 163. In the First Circuit,when a board is confronted with evidence that no alternative site exists, <br /> it must come forward with evidence and not vague assertions thaf either Blue Sky's search was . <br /> insufficient or with a potential alternative itself. <br /> 164. Blue Sky analyzed hundreds of potential alternative sites, and in some cases, went back <br /> and analyzed them again when raised by the public,and provided the Board with a firm analysis of <br /> each alternative investigated and why the Proposed Site is the only feasible location. <br /> 165. Faced with this evidence,the Board was required to come forward with evidence that Blue <br /> Sky's process was insufficient or with a potential alternative itself. Instead, the Board makes a <br /> blanket statement that Blue Sky has failed to demonstrate that"less intrusive and more compliant <br /> alternatives" exist and makes a blanketly false statement that Blue Sky relied upon the RFP and <br /> execution of the lease with the Town in lieu of an alternative site analysis. <br /> 166. The Board failed to show how considered sites were improperly rejected. <br /> 167. The denial prohibits or effectively prohibits the provision of wireless.services in violation <br /> of the TCA for the reasons outlined above. <br /> 168. Blue Sky has suffered and continues to suffer irreparable harm based upon being prohibited <br /> from constructing and operating a.personal wireless service facility for two national wireless <br /> service providers and the Town. <br /> 169. This Honorable Court should declare that the denial violations the prohibition set forth in <br /> 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)• <br /> 20 <br />