acknowledging the TCA’s requirement at § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) and identifying the federal review standard as whether the local decision “has substantial support in the record as a whole” and “whether the record contains such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the Zoning Board’s conclusion”
How later courts described this case
- acknowledging the TCA’s requirement at § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) and identifying the federal review standard as whether the local decision “has substantial support in the record as a whole” and “whether the record contains such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the Zoning Board’s conclusion”
- “[A] proposed telecommunication facility’s negative impact on the neighborhood may support a finding of substantial evidence” (internal quotation marks omitted)
- acknowledging the TCA’s requirement at § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DAVIS, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur fully in Judge Agee’s fine opinion for the panel. As Judge Agee ably explains, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, and AT & T has failed to provide more than a scintilla of evidence from which a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that further efforts to secure approval for a wireless facility in Fort Hunt National Park are “so likely to be fruitless that it is a waste of time to try.” Maj. Op. at 277 (quoting USCOC of Virginia RSA # 3, Inc. v. Montgomery County Board of Supervisors, 343 F.3d 262, 268 (4th Cir.2003)). That is, I agree that AT & T’s evidence on the “lack of reasonable alternative sites” is significantly weaker than *278 was T-Mobile’s evidence on alternative sites in T-Mobile Northeast, LLC v. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, 672 F.3d 259, 266 (4th Cir.2012), which the majority in that case held (over my dissent) to be insufficient to require a trial on the issue. Id. at 269-70 . I write separately simply to note that neither in this case nor in T-Mobile has this circuit yet determined “whether a particular level of coverage in a particular geographic area constitutes an ‘effective absence of coverage.’ ” Id. at 277 (Davis, J., dissenting). That question remains for resolution in a future case.