Investigation of Alternative Sites Sample Clauses

Investigation of Alternative Sites. In Willoth, the Second Circuit found that “local governments may reasonably take the location of the telecommunications tower into consideration when deciding whether [ ] to require a more probing inquiry . . . .” Xxxxxxx, 176 F.3d at 639. A local board is justified in considering the availability of alternatives that might create less disruption to the community’s zoning plan. See id. at 643. Here, the Court must ascertain whether there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that alternative sites were not investigated properly, based on evaluation of the entire record, including opposing evidence. See Am. Textile Mfrs. Inst., Inc. x. Xxxxxxx, 452 U.S. 490, 523, 101 S. Ct. 2478, 2497, 69 L. Ed. 2d 185 (1981). The Board presented no evidence that other sites were appropriate substitutes for the Property. In particular, the Board seems to focus on a local Sleepy’s mattress store as a viable alternative site. But Verizon clearly explained, at the Hearing and in its supporting papers here, why the Sleepy’s site is inappropriate: after significant negotiation, the owner of the Sleepy’s building continually insisted on a term in the lease agreement that gave either party the right to unilaterally terminate the agreement; thus, at any time, Verizon could be forced to remove the Facility and the antennas, causing a significant disruption in service on its network. Verizon gave similar, good-faith justifications for why all other sites, including ones suggested by the Board and others it sought out on its own, would not substitute for the Property. After reviewing the record, the Court concludes that Verizon met its burden of investigating alternatives and presented credible evidence regarding the infeasibility of the sites. The Board’s conclusion to the contrary was not based on substantial evidence.