Case 3:20-cv-01327-GCS Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`
`)
`
`))
`
`)
`)
`
`))
`
`NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS LLC,
`d/b/a AT&T MOBILITY,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`3:20-cv-1327
`No. __________________
`
`)
`MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING
`APPEALS and MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF )
`COMMISSIONERS,
`
`))
`
`)
`
`
`Defendants.
`__________________________________________)
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`This action arises out of the unlawful denial of a wireless communications facility siting
`
`request by Monroe County, Illinois and its Board of Commissioners and Board of Zoning
`
`Appeals. Plaintiff New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility (“AT&T”) for its
`
`complaint alleges as follows:
`
`1.
`
`The Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. (the
`
`“Telecommunications Act” or the “1996 Act”) preempts State and local decisions that “prohibit
`
`or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services,” and requires that
`
`State and local decisions denying requests to place personal wireless service facilities, such as
`
`cell towers, be supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. 47 U.S.C. §
`
`332(c)(7)(B). The Monroe County Board of Commissioners (“Board of Commissioners”)
`
`violated § 332(c)(7)(B) when it denied AT&T’s application (the “Application”) for permission to
`
`construct an approximately 155-foot wireless communication monopole (the “Facility”) and
`
`related equipment at a site (“Site”) within a fenced-in, leased portion of a parcel of land located
`
`CHDB01 1526487.1 02-Dec-10 12:12
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01327-GCS Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 2 of 14 Page ID #2
`
`at 1332 Valmeyer Road, outside the corporate limits of Columbia, Illinois. The Board of
`
`Commissioners based their decision on the ruling of the Monroe County Board of Zoning
`
`Appeals (“Zoning Board”) (collectively, with the Board of Commissioners, the “County”),
`
`whose erroneous interpretation of County ordinances contradicted those ordinances as properly
`
`interpreted, as well as state and federal law. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct
`
`copy of the Zoning Board’s final written decision denying AT&T’s zoning appeal.
`
`2.
`
`AT&T seeks to install the Facility at the Site in order to remedy significant
`
`service deficiencies in its personal wireless service coverage in the area. AT&T considered
`
`several potential locations for the proposed Facility, but each of the alternatives proved
`
`infeasible. AT&T’s proposal to place a monopole at the Site is the only feasible option for
`
`filling the significant gap in coverage in the area.
`
`3.
`
`The County’s actions were not based on substantial evidence contained in a
`
`written record, as required by 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). In addition, the Zoning Board’s
`
`denial prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting AT&T’s provision of personal wireless services,
`
`in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i). AT&T thus seeks all appropriate relief pursuant to
`
`47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v).
`
`4.
`
`Furthermore, the County’s denial was in error and a misapplication of the
`
`County’s ordinances, and violated the restrictions set forth the Illinois Counties Code, namely 55
`
`ILCS 5/5-12001.1, which limit the standards a county can implement to approve or deny a
`
`telecommunications carrier’s application. The County’s denial violated those standards by
`
`erroneously prohibiting AT&T from installing the Facility on a leased parcel of land, adjacent to
`
`which the landlord operated a storage facility. Furthermore, the County’s interpretation of its
`
`ordinance effectively prohibits telecommunications carriers from installing wireless towers on a
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01327-GCS Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 3 of 14 Page ID #3
`
`substantial amount of commercial properties, which is the very type of property that the Illinois
`
`Counties Code explicitly prefers for tower installations.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility (referred to
`
`hereinafter as AT&T) is a Delaware limited liability company. It is licensed to conduct business
`
`in the State of Illinois and operates wireless communications facilities throughout the State of
`
`Illinois. New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC is indirectly wholly owned by AT&T Inc.,
`
`subsidiaries and affiliates of which provide wireless communication services nationwide.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals is a duly constituted board
`
`of zoning appeals established under 55 ILCS 5/5-12009 of the Illinois General Assembly with
`
`jurisdiction over all unincorporated land within Monroe County and with an office at 100 S.
`
`Main St., Waterloo, IL 62298.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant Monroe County Board of Commissioners is a duly constituted board
`
`with jurisdiction over local government policy decisions within Monroe County and with an
`
`office at 100 S. Main St., Waterloo, IL 62298.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to (a) section
`
`332(c)(7)(B)(v) of the Telecommunications Act because AT&T has been adversely affected and
`
`aggrieved by the Zoning Board’s denial of its Application and (b) 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this
`
`action presents a federal question under the Telecommunications Act.
`
`9.
`
`This Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1367(a) over AT&T’s claims made pursuant to Illinois law because those state law claims are so
`
`related to the federal claims as to form part of the same case or controversy.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01327-GCS Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 4 of 14 Page ID #4
`
`10.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because defendants
`
`reside in this district and the events and/or omissions giving rise to AT&T’s claims arose in this
`
`judicial district.
`
`FACTS
`
`I. Background
`
`11.
`
`AT&T and its affiliates provide wireless voice and data products and services to
`
`customers nationwide, including “personal wireless services” within the meaning of Section 332
`
`of the Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 332.
`
`12.
`
`The licenses authorizing AT&T to provide wireless service in Monroe County
`
`were issued by the FCC pursuant to the Federal Communications Act, as amended. The Act
`
`establishes a national policy to “make available, so far as possible, to all people of the United
`
`States, without discrimination . . . a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide and worldwide wire and radio
`
`communications service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges for the purposes of
`
`national defense [and] for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of
`
`wire and radio communications.” 47 U.S.C. § 151.
`
`13. Wireless service is important to the public safety and for consumer convenience.
`
`There are now more wireless subscriptions than landline telephone subscriptions in the United
`
`States. At present, the number of landline telephone subscribers across the nation is declining
`
`every year while the number of wireless subscribers increases.
`
`14.
`
`For many Americans, wireless devices have become an indispensable replacement
`
`for traditional landline telephones. Even when Americans maintain both types of service, they
`
`are opting increasingly to use wireless over their landline.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01327-GCS Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 5 of 14 Page ID #5
`
`15.
`
`For Americans living in “wireless only” homes and working in “wireless only”
`
`businesses, cell phones are their only lifeline in emergencies.
`
`16.
`
`To meet the policy goals established by Congress, and provide personal wireless
`
`services to local businesses, public safety entities, and the general public, AT&T must
`
`consistently update its technology, facilities, and network to keep up to date with customers’
`
`ever-growing demand for mobile services, including mobile data service, wireless phone
`
`coverage, and emergency services communications. Among other things, AT&T must create
`
`and maintain a network of “cell sites,” each of which consists of antennas and related equipment
`
`designed to send and receive radio signals.
`
`17. Wireless devices using all-digital technology operate by transmitting a radio
`
`signal to antennas mounted on a tower, pole, building, or other structure. The antennas feed the
`
`signals to electronic devices housed in a small equipment cabin or base station. The base station
`
`is connected by microwave, fiber optic cable, or ordinary telephone wire to a base station
`
`controller subsequently routing the calls throughout the world.
`
`18.
`
`In order to provide reliable service to a user, coverage must overlap in a grid
`
`pattern resembling a honeycomb. In order for the entire network to be operational, there must be
`
`properly placed cell sites installed and functioning so that reliable coverage can be realized.
`
`Only when the entire system is operational will a user have service and be able to partake in
`
`uninterrupted conversations throughout a given territory. If there is no functioning cell site
`
`within a given area, there would be no service for customers within that area and mobile
`
`customers who travel through the area will experience an unacceptable level of dropped calls.
`
`19. When there is a need to improve coverage in a specific area, AT&T’s engineers
`
`produce a search ring, identifying the area within which a wireless facility of the necessary
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01327-GCS Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 6 of 14 Page ID #6
`
`height must be located or upgraded. The study takes into account the topography of the land, the
`
`coverage boundaries of neighboring cells, and other factors.
`
`20. Within the Zoning Division of the Illinois’s Counties Code are provisions
`
`granting Illinois counties limited authority to regulate the telecommunications facilities pursuant
`
`to the explicit standards and requirements therein. See 55 ILCS 5/5-12001.1.
`
`21.
`
`Section 55 ILCS 5/5-12001.1, provides, inter alia:
`
`a. “[T]he county board or board of county commissioners of any county
`
`shall have the power to regulate the location of the facilities . . . of a
`
`telecommunications carrier . . . established outside the corporate limits of
`
`cities . . . The power shall only be exercised to the extent and in the
`
`manner set forth in this Section.” 55 ILCS 5/5-12001.1(a).
`
`b. Telecommunications carriers should place the highest priority on “non-
`
`residentially zoned lot[s]” when choosing locations for
`
`telecommunications facilities. 55 ILCS 5/5-12001.1(d)
`
`c. “A facility may be located on the same zoning lot as one or more other
`
`structures or uses without violating any ordinance or regulation that
`
`prohibits or limits multiple structures, buildings, or uses on a zoning lot.”
`
`55 ILCS 5/5-12001.1(f)(2)
`
`d. The reasonableness of the County’s adverse decision concerning AT&T’s
`
`facility is subject to judicial review without any presumption of validity.
`
`55 ILCS 5/-12001.1(f)(9).
`
`e. In Illinois counties with a population of less than 180,000 (such as Monroe
`
`County), a telecommunications facility is deemed permitted if it satisfies
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01327-GCS Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 7 of 14 Page ID #7
`
`the height and horizontal separation requirements set forth in 55 ILCS 5/-
`
`12001.1(g)(1).
`
`f. If a facility does not satisfy said requirements, the county board is to hold
`
`a meeting “no later than 75 days after submission of a complete
`
`application by the telecommunications carrier. If the county board fails to
`
`act on the application within 75 days after its submission, the application
`
`shall be deemed to have been approved. No more than one public hearing
`
`shall be required.” 55 ILCS 5/-12001.1(g)(2).
`
`22. Monroe County has enacted certain ordinances with respect to the siting of
`
`telecommunications facilities within the County. See Monroe County Zoning Code of
`
`Ordinances, § 40-9-1 – § 40-9-3 and § 41-1-1 – § 41-2-11 (“Zoning Code”).
`
`II. AT&T’s Zoning Application
`
`23.
`
`AT&T has significant service deficiencies in its wireless network coverage in
`
`Monroe County. Specifically, AT&T’s coverage in the area around the proposed Facility is
`
`stressed and is causing service disruptions for local customers. Due to the continued population
`
`and commercial growth in the area, the coverage issues will only get worse over time.
`
`24.
`
`The Site of AT&T’s proposed Facility would be located within a fenced-in, leased
`
`portion of the 1332 Valmeyer parcel. The owner of the subject parcel currently maintains a self-
`
`storage facility on a separate portion of the parcel.
`
`25.
`
`Placing the proposed Facility, a 155-foot monopole, at the proposed Site would
`
`alleviate the issues currently experienced and to be experienced with respect to AT&T’s wireless
`
`
`1 The Monroe County Code of Ordinances contains apparently duplicative ordinances with
`respect to “Communication Structures” (§ 40-9-1 – § 40-9-3) and “Communication Support
`Structures and Antennas” (41-1-1 – § 41-2-1).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01327-GCS Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 8 of 14 Page ID #8
`
`coverage. The Site is centrally located within the area in question, and is zoned MB2, where
`
`communications facilities are permitted under the Zoning Code.
`
`26.
`
`The Zoning Code notes that “[c]ommunication support structures and antennas
`
`may be permitted in all zoning districts…” The Ordinance requires that a proposed tower meet
`
`certain requirements and that the tower owner make certain submissions as part of a zoning
`
`application, including a full site plan.
`
`27.
`
`AT&T’s site acquisition representative submitted a Zoning Application for the
`
`Proposed Tower on April 12, 2019. AT&T’s application satisfied the Zoning Code’s submission
`
`requirements, and demonstrated that the Facility would address the substantial service issues in
`
`the area immediately surrounding the Facility.
`
`28.
`
`The search for an acceptable alternative site included researching any existing tall
`
`structures (buildings, other towers, water towers) within one mile of the proposed location.
`
`29. When attempting to remedy a gap in service coverage, AT&T seeks where
`
`possible to co-locate its antenna facilities on existing towers or other existing suitable structures.
`
`30.
`
`Here, there is no existing tower or other tall structure upon which AT&T could
`
`co-locate its facilities in order to remedy the service deficiencies.
`
`III. The Board of Commissioner’s Hearing, Rehearing, and Zoning Administrator’s
`Decision
`
`On November 4, 2019, the County’s Board of Commissioners held a public
`
`31.
`
`hearing on AT&T’s April 12, 2019 application. After a presentation from AT&T representatives
`
`and remonstrations from the public, the Board of Commissioners tabled its decision on the
`
`application, and held a second public hearing on August 3, 2020.
`
`32.
`
`During the August 3, 2020 hearing, the Board of Commissioners requested that
`
`the County Zoning Administrator interpret a portion of the Zoning Code, namely § 40-9-3(B)(1)
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01327-GCS Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 9 of 14 Page ID #9
`
`and § 41-2-1(B)(1), which both state “No public office, or principal repair or storage facilities
`
`shall be maintained in connection with the site.”
`
`33.
`
`AT&T argued that the referenced provision was intended only to prevent
`
`telecommunications carriers from maintaining significant additional operations in addition to the
`
`telecommunications facility itself, such as operating a company vehicle repair operation, or
`
`commercial sales office, or a company equipment storage program. However, the County Zoning
`
`Administrator interpreted the provisions as prohibiting AT&T from installing the proposed
`
`Facility at the Site because the owner of the larger parcel operates a self-storage business on a
`
`portion of the parcel, despite (a) the storage facility having no commercial relation to AT&T’s
`
`business operations, (b) AT&T having no intention to operate a storage facility of any kind in
`
`connection with the Facility, and (c) the leased premises constituting the Site for the Facility
`
`being fenced off and separated from the self-storage business.
`
`34.
`
`The Board of Commissioners deferred further discussion on or determination of
`
`AT&T’s application while AT&T pursued an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s
`
`interpretation. AT&T filed an appeal with the Zoning Board shortly after the August 3, 2020
`
`hearing.
`
`IV. The Zoning Board’s Hearing and Decision
`
`35.
`
`On September 9, 2020, the Zoning Board held a public hearing on AT&T’s
`
`appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision. AT&T argued that the Zoning Administrator’s
`
`interpretation of the Zoning Code was erroneous and, if it was not erroneous, the Zoning Code
`
`likely violated Illinois and federal law.
`
`36.
`
`The Zoning Board also heard from remonstrators who voiced concerns about the
`
`location of the proposed Facility. The Zoning Board then voted to deny AT&T’s appeal, with a
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01327-GCS Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 10 of 14 Page ID #10
`
`vote of two (2) in favor of overturning the Zoning Administrator’s interpretation, two (2) against
`
`overturning the decision, and one (1) abstention.
`
`37.
`
`At a public meeting on October 5, 2020, the County Board of Commissioners
`
`verbally denied AT&T’s application in light of the Zoning Board’s determination. The meeting
`
`minutes for this meeting were published on the County website on December 2, 2020.
`
`38.
`
`On November 10, 2020, the Zoning Board approved and issued a formal written
`
`decision, which summarized the statements made by various parties during the September 9,
`
`2020 hearing, and noted the Zoning Board’s vote tally. See Exhibit A hereto.
`
`COUNT I
`(The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996,
`47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7) - Substantial Evidence)
`
`AT&T incorporates by reference the allegations in each of the paragraphs set
`
`39.
`
`forth above.
`
`40.
`
`Although the 1996 Act preserves local zoning authority over the siting of wireless
`
`facilities, 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A), “the method by which siting decisions are made is now
`
`subject to judicial oversight.” Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 493 (2d
`
`Cir. 1999). “Therefore denials subject to the Act are reviewed by a court more closely” than
`
`other zoning decisions. Id. Among other things, “[i]f a decision is not supported by substantial
`
`evidence, § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii), or if it effectively prohibits the provision of wireless service, §
`
`332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II), then under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, local law is pre-empted
`
`in order to effectuate the Act’s national policy goals.” Second Generation Props. L.P. v. Town of
`
`Pelham, 313 F.3d 620, 627 (1st Cir. 2002).
`
`41.
`
`Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii), “[a]ny decision by a State or local
`
`government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01327-GCS Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 11 of 14 Page ID #11
`
`wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a
`
`written record.”
`
`42.
`
`The Zoning Board’s decision to deny AT&T’s appeal, and the Board of
`
`Commissioners’ subsequent denial of AT&T’s application, violate 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii)
`
`because the decisions are not supported by substantial evidence in a written record. The record
`
`does not contain substantial evidence to justify the decision issued by the Zoning Board on
`
`November 10, 2020. In that regard, there is no evidence, much less substantial evidence in a
`
`written record, that AT&T would be maintaining a storage facility “in connection with” the Site,
`
`as the storage facility that is located elsewhere on the parcel containing the Site has no
`
`commercial or operational relationship with the AT&T’s facility.
`
`43.
`
`The County’s erroneous interpretations and decisions have caused and will
`
`continue to cause AT&T irreparable harm.
`
`44.
`
`AT&T is entitled to relief under the Telecommunications Act ordering the Zoning
`
`Board to approve AT&T’s appeal, and ordering the Board of Commissioners to thereafter
`
`approve AT&T’s application and other permits required to install, operate, and maintain the
`
`Facility.
`
`45.
`
`above.
`
`COUNT II
`(The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996,
`47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7) - Effective Prohibition)
`
`AT&T incorporates here by reference the allegations in each of the paragraphs
`
`46.
`
`Local authority over zoning and land use matters cannot be used to “prohibit or
`
`have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.” 47 U.S.C. §
`
`332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01327-GCS Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 12 of 14 Page ID #12
`
`47.
`
`The Telecommunications Act requires local zoning authorities to allow carriers to
`
`resolve significant coverage issues in the coverage of their wireless networks.
`
`48.
`
`AT&T has significant coverage issues in its wireless network and provision of
`
`personal wireless services in Monroe County.
`
`49.
`
`AT&T’s proposed Facility at the Site represents the only feasible and least
`
`intrusive means of remedying AT&T’s significant gap in its personal wireless services coverage.
`
`50.
`
`The County’s interpretations and decisions violate Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i). The
`
`denial of AT&T’s application has the effect of prohibiting the provision personal wireless
`
`service in the relevant area.
`
`51.
`
`The County’s decisions have caused and will continue to cause AT&T irreparable
`
`harm.
`
`52.
`
`AT&T is entitled to relief under the Telecommunications Act ordering the Zoning
`
`Board to approve AT&T’s approval and to provide permits required to install, operate, and
`
`maintain the Facility.
`
`COUNT III
`REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ZONING DECISION
`
`53.
`
`AT&T incorporates here by reference the allegations in each of the paragraphs
`
`
`
`above.
`
`54.
`
`The County’s interpretation of the Zoning Code and related actions and decisions
`
`described herein improperly prohibit AT&T from proceeding with installation of the Facility at
`
`the commercially zoned Site.
`
`55.
`
`The County’s interpretation of the Zoning Code and related actions and decisions
`
`described herein violate the requirements and standards of 55 ILCS 5/5-12001.1.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01327-GCS Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 13 of 14 Page ID #13
`
`56.
`
`Among other violations, the County’s decision is founded on the erroneous belief
`
`that the Zoning Ordinance prohibits installation of a communications tower on any parcel of land
`
`whereupon a “public office, or principal repair or storage facilit[y]” is located. Prohibiting
`
`installation of communications towers on sites with “public offices” and “storage facilities”
`
`would effectively restrict telecommunications carriers from pursuing tower installations at
`
`countless non-residentially zoned lots that contain such offices or facilities, a result which
`
`squarely subverts the siting preferences of 55 ILCS 5/5-12001.1(d).
`
`57.
`
`AT&T has exhausted all available remedies under applicable administrative
`
`review laws and ordinances, and requests judicial review of this decision.
`
`58.
`
`The timeliness and propriety of the County’s adverse decision concerning
`
`AT&T’s facility is subject to de novo judicial review without any presumption of validity. 55
`
`ILCS 5/-12001.1(f)(9); 55 ILCS 5/5-12012.1(a).
`
`COUNT IV
`VIOLATION OF 55 ILCS 5/5-12001.1
`
`AT&T incorporates here by reference the allegations in each of the paragraphs
`
`59.
`
`above.
`
`60.
`
`In the alternative to Count III, if the County’s interpretation of the Zoning Code is
`
`proper (i.e., the Zoning Code does, in fact, restrict installation of telecommunications towers on
`
`lots where separate business have public offices, or principal repair or storage facilities), the
`
`Zoning Code would have the effect of substantially prohibiting the provision of personal wireless
`
`service in the relevant area in violation of 55 ILCS 5/5-12001.1. The Zoning Code is therefore
`
`preempted by the requirements of 55 ILCS 5/5-12001.1.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01327-GCS Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 14 of 14 Page ID #14
`
`61.
`
`AT&T is entitled to judicial review and relief ordering the Zoning Board to
`
`approve AT&T’s application and other permits required to install, operate, and maintain the
`
`Facility.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, AT&T respectfully prays that this Court grant it relief as follows:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Permit expedited review of the matters set forth in this Complaint;
`
`Enter an order declaring the County’s decisions violate and are preempted by 47
`
`U.S.C. § 332(c)(7);
`
`3.
`
`Enter an order declaring the County’s decisions violate and are preempted by 55
`
`ILCS 5/5-12001.1;
`
`4.
`
`Enter an order requiring the County to approve AT&T’s Application and
`
`authorize AT&T to install its proposed Facility at the Site and to issue all other permits required
`
`to install, operate, and maintain the Facility; and
`
`5.
`
`Order such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
`
`
`
`Dated: December 10, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
` By: /s/ Luke G. Maher
`Luke G. Maher
`Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
`7676 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 2230
`St. Louis, Missouri 63105
`Telephone: (314) 505-8800
`Facsimile: (314) 505-8899
`luke.maher@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`14
`
`