2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-1-2005 

# C el lul ar T elephone v . Z oning B d Ad

ju s tme nt P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3221

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " C e l lul ar T e lep hone v

. Z onin g Bd Adjus tme n t " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 763. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/763NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 04- 3221 CE LLU LA R T ELE PH O N E W I RE LESS, d/b/ a *AT & T W I RE LESS v. THE B OA RD OF A DJ USTM ENT O F THE TOW NSH I P OF NO RTH BERG EN A ppel l ant *( A m ended i n acc or dance w i t h t he C l erks ’ O r derdat ed 9/ 2/ 04) O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 02- cv- 05972) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ohn C . L i fl and

A r gued A pr i l 22, 2005 B efore: R O T H , F U E N T E S , and S T A P L E T O N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: A ugus t1, 2005) GE RA L D J . M ONAHA N ( AR GUE D) 322 48t h St r eet U ni on C i t y , N J 07087 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ant KE NNE T H J . WI L BU R ( AR GUE D) Dr i n k e rBi d d l e & Re a t h LLP 500 C ampus D r i ve Fl or ham P ark, N J 07932- 1047 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ee- 2- OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge. T hi s appea l i nvol ves t he i nt er act i on betw een the ( fede r al ) T el ecomm uni cat i ons A ctof 1996 ( T C A ) and N ew J er s eys t at e zoni ng l aw s . I tpr es ent s t he ques t i on w hether th e N o rth B e rg e n z o n in g b o a rd ’s d e c isio n to d e n yA T & T ’s a p p lica tio n f o r a v a ria n c e to al l ow t he companyt o i ns t al l m i cr ocel l equi pm enton an al r eadynonconform i ng comm er ci al bui l di ng i n a r es i dent i al ar ea i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , as r equi r ed b yfe d era l l aw . T h e D istri ct C o u rtfo u n d that su b stan ti al ev iden ce su p p o rt ed the b o ard ’s fi ndi ng t hatA T & T fai l ed t o s how t hatt he bui l di ng w as par t i cul ar l ys ui t ed fort he us e, as r equi r ed byN ew J er s eyl aw . H ow ever , i tw enton t o fi nd t hats uch a s how i ng w as not nece s s arybeca us e the N ew J er s eySupr eme C our tw oul d fi nd t hatm i cr ocel l i ns t al l at i ons a re in h e re n tly b e n e f

ic ia l u s e s , o b v ia tin g th e n e e d to s h o w p a rt ic u la r s u ita b ility. A c c o rd in g ly , the D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f A T & T o n its c laim t hatt he boar d’ s deci s i on i s nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . W e w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our tbeca us e w e fi nd t hatA T & T carr i ed i t s bur den of s how i ng par t i cul ar su itab ili ty . W e d o n o t re a c h th e in h e re n tlyb e n e f icia l u se q u e stio n th a t f o rm e d th e b a sis of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on. I.I tbeca m e cl earator al ar gum entt hatt he mi cr ocel l w as actual l yi ns t al l ed af t ert he 1 D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on. H ow everi t s cont i nued pr es ence i s condi t i onal on our r es ol ut i on of thi s cas e. A ccor di ngl y , t her e i s no m oot nes s pr obl em. A l s o, not w i t hs t andi ng t he i ns t al l at i on of the equi pm ent , w e r efe rt o t he var i ance as a pr opos ed var i ance i n t hi s opi ni on as w e bel i eve thati tal l ow s fora more natur al r eadi ng.

- 3- A s w e w rite f

o r th e p a rties , w h o a re f a m ili a r w ith th e f

a c ts o f th e c a se , w e w ill on l yoff er a br i ef sum m ary . C el l ularT el eph on e C om pan yd/b/ a A T & T W i rel ess ( “A T & T ”) pr ovi des w i r el es s t el ecomm uni cat i ons s ervi ces , and i s l i cens ed t o do s o byt he FC C . I n or dert o amel i or at e a c over age pr obl em, A T & T s oughta var i ance fr om t he N o rth B e rg e n z o n in g b o a rd (th e “ B o a rd ” ) to p lac e a “ m icr o c e ll” in sta llatio n – tw o sm a ll cabi net s and tw o s m al l ant ennas –on t he r oof of a n offi ce bui l di ng ( t he Zept erB ui l di ng or t he “Bui l di ng”) i n a r es i dent i al zone. T he B ui l di ng i s al r eadya nonconf or m i ng us e and 1 s its n e x t to a la rg e g a s s ta tio n . I ti s l ocat ed i n an i deal and uni que s pott hatal l ow s t he s ma l l “ mi c r o c e l l ” e q u i p me n tt o f i x t h e c o v e r a g e p r o b l e m. A tt he h eari ng befo re the B oard, A T & T had several exp ert s t est i fyt o the i dealness of the l ocat i on and the mi nori nt rus i venes s of the equi pm ent . H ow ever , one of the expert s t es t i fi ed thati tm i ghtbe pos s i bl e t o us e tw o i ns t al l at i ons i n nonr es i dent i al zones at th e e n d s o f

th e g a p p o in tin g in to so lv e th e p ro b lem , b u t th a t n o a ltern a tiv e site f e a sib ili ty s tudyhad bee n done. T he B oar d deni ed the perm i t , fi ndi ng t hatA T & T fai l ed t o demonst r at e thatt he p ro p o se d site w a s p a rticu lar lysu ited f o r th e u se , b e c a u se A T & T d id n o t in v e stig a te al t ernat i ve nonr es i dent i al l ocat i ons fort he equi pm ent . A ddi t i onal l y , t he B oar d found that- 4-

t he equi pm entw oul d be an unne ces s aryand unac cept abl e ey es or e fort he obj ect i ng c o n d o m in iu m o w n e rs . A T & T fi l ed s ui ti n t he D i s t r i ctC our t , cl ai m i ng, among ot hert hi ngs , t hatt he d e c i s i o n wa s n o ts u p p o r t e d b ys u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , a s r e q u i r e d b yt h e T C A. AT &T m ov ed fo r s um m aryj ud gm ent on t his cl ai m . T he D i stri ctC ou rtheld that the B oard’s fi rs t fi ndi ng r egar di ng t he s ui t abi l i t yof the l ocat i on w as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence b e c a u s e AT &T f

a i l e d t o e x p l o r e a l t e r n a t i v e s e v e n t h o u g h i tc o n c e d e d t h a tt h e ye x i s t . As to th e “ e y e s o re ” f

in d in g , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt f o u n d th a t s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e w a s la c k in g . H ow ever , aft ers uppl ement al br i efi ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr edi ct ed thatt he N ew J er s ey Supr eme C our tw oul d fi nd t hatt he mount i ng of per s onal w i r el es s fac i l i t i es on exi s t i ng stru c tu re s is a n in h e re n tlyb e n e f icia l u se , the re b yo b v iatin g th e n e e d to sh o w th a t th e site w as par t i cul ar l ys ui t ed t o t he us e. B eca us e of thi s rul i ng, A T & T w as aw ar ded the r el i ef t hat i tsoug ht ( t he reversal of the B oard’s rej ect i on ). T he B oard ap peals . T he B oar d ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n concl udi ng t hatt he N ew J er s ey Supr eme C our tw oul d confe ri nher ent l ybenef i ci al us e s t atus on bui l di ng- m ount ed m icr o c e lls. A T & T a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in c o n c lu d in g th a t A T & T f a iled to d e m o n s t r a t e p a r t i c u l a rs u i t a b i l i t y. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad fe der al ques t i on j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s cas e pur s uantt o 28 U . S . C . § 1 3 3 1 , b ec au se 4 7 U . S . C . § 3 3 2 (c)(7)(B )(i ii ) subjects st ate a n d loca l zon ing b o ard deci s i ons t o fede r al cour tr evi ew . T hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on overt he fi nal or derof theTh is d e ferenti a l st and ard is s imi lar t o th esta

nd ard of review u se d b y

theNew Je rs e y

c ourt s 2 wi th re sp e c t to zon ingbo ard de te rm inatio ns , und e r whic h th e“ c ourt s w illde fer t o a de c isi on if it is supported by

the re cord a

nd is not so arbitrary, capricious, or unre asonableas to amount to an abuse of discretion.” Smar

t SMRof N.Y., Inc. v. B orough of F air L awn B d. of Adjustment, 704 A.2d 1271, 1280 (N.J. 1998).

- 5- D i s t r i ctC our tunder28 U . S. C . § 1291. II. T he Tel ecomm uni cat i ons A ctexpr es s l ypr es erves l ocal zoni ng author i t yovert he pl ace m ent , cons t ruct i on, and modi fi cat i on of per s onal w i r el es s s ervi ce f aci l i t i es . See 47 U .S .C . § 3 3 2 (c )(7 )(A ). H o w e v e r, o n e p ro v isio n p ro v id e s th a t “[ a ]n yd e c isio n b ya S tate orl ocal governm entori ns t rum ent al i t yt her eof t o denya r eques tt o pl ace , cons t ruct , or m odi fyper s onal w i r el es s s ervi ce f aci l i t i es s hal l be i n w r i t i ng and s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence cont ai ned i n a w r i t t en r ecor d. ” 47 U . S. C . § 332( c) ( 7) ( B ) ( i i i ) . “Subs t ant i al evi dence ‘ does notm ean a l ar ge orcons i der abl e amountof evi dence , butr athers uch evi dence as a r eas onabl e mi nd m i ghtacc eptas adequa t e t o s uppor ta conc l us i on. ’ ” See C ell u lar T el. C o . v . Z o n ing B d . o f A d justm en t ( H o -H o -K u s), 1 9 7 F . 3 d 6 4 , 7 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) (qu o ti n g P ierce v . U n d erw o o d , 4 8 7 U . S . 5 5 2 , 5 6 5 (19 8 8 ) (qu o tat ion s o m itted)). 2 “I n t he cont extof § 332( c) ( 7) ( B ) ( i i i ) , t he dec i s i on pr oces s i t s el f i s governed by appl i cabl e s t at e and l ocal zoni ng l aw s . ” I d. at72. T hus , ourt as k “i s t o det erm i ne w hethert he [z oni ng boar d’ s ] deci s i on, as gui ded byl ocal l aw , i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . ” I d. “U nderN ew J er s eyl aw , l ocal zoni ng offi ci al s m us tw ei gh t he pos i t i ve an d n eg ati v e f

ac tors asso ciated w ith a re q u ested zo n ing v arian ce an d d eterm ine w h ethe r,In li eu o f p artic ula r s uit a bil ity, a n a pp lic ant c an s ho w “un du eha rd sh ip, ”wh ic h re quir e s a 3 showingthat the property cannot reasona

bly be deve loped with a conf orminguse. See Me dici v. BPR Co., 526 A.2d 109, 110 n.1 (N.J. 1987). There is no c laim of undue ha rdship in this case. In addition to particular suitability , an applica nt may also nee d to show that the use promotes the g eneral welf

are . New B runswick Cellular T el. Co. v. Borough of S. Plainfield Bd. of Adjustment (South P lainfield), 733 A.2d 442, 449 ( N.J . 1999) (“ The positive criteria test whe ther a prop os e d u sepromo te s th eg e neral w e lf areand is p artic ula

rly su ite d f or thesit e .”(emph a sis added) ). B ut see id. at 445 (“ Generally speaking , ‘to satisfy

the positive criteria, an a pplicant mus t prov ethat ‘ theus epromo te s th eg e neral w e lf arebe c a us etheprop os e d s iteis p artic ula rly suitable for theproposed use .’” ( quoting Smart,704 A.2d at 1278 (quotation omitt ed)) ). In any c a se , “ [w]ith te le c omm

un ic atio ns tow e rs , a

n F CC li c e ns eg e nerally

e sta bli sh e s th at th eus e promotes the g eneral welf are .” I d. at 449. Acc ording ly , thereappea rs to be no question that the mic ro c e ll i ns tallatio n h e resim ila rly se rv e s th eg e neral w e lf

areins of ar a s th at de te rm inatio n is s ep ar at ef ro mp art i c u l ar

s u i t a b i l i ty.

- 6- on bal ance , t hos e fa ct or s w ei gh i n favorof gr ant i ng orr ej ect i ng t he r eques t . ” I d. “I f the p ro p o se d u se is d e e m e d ‘in h e re n tlyb e n e f icia l,’ th e p o sitiv e c riter ia r e q u ire m e n t is aut om at i cal l ys at i s fi ed. ” I d. O t herw i s e, t he part ys eeki ng t he var i ance m us ts how t hat “the pr opos ed s i t e i s par t i cul ar l ys ui t abl e forthe pr opos ed us e. ” C oventr ySquar e, I nc. v. 3 W e stw o o d Z o n in g B d . o f A d ju stm e n t, 65 0 A .2 d 3 4 0 , 3 4 5 (N .J. 1 9 9 4 ). W ith re sp e c t to t he nega t i ve cr i t er i a, a courtm us tbal ance t he pos i t i ve cr i t er i a aga i ns tt he nega t i ve i m pact of the us e, “‘ and det erm i ne w hether , on bal ance , t he gr antof the var i ance w oul d caus e a s ubs t ant i al detr i m entt o t he publ i c good. ’ ” Sm ar t , 704 A . 2d at1283 ( quot i ng Si ca v. B d. o f A d justm en t, 6 0 3 A . 2 d 3 0 , 3 7 (N . J. 1 9 9 2 )). III . T h e Di s t r i c tCo u r th e l d t h a tt h e Bo a r d ’ s f i n d i n g t h a tAT &T h a d n o ts h o wn p arti cu lar suit ab il ityw as su p p o rt ed b ysu b stan ti al ev iden ce . W e w il l con side r A T & T ’s chal l enge t o t hi s concl us i on fi r s t . T he part i cul ar l ys ui t ed us e fa ct orr equi r es a fi ndi ng t hatAlthough a somewhat re cent Appe llate Division case c ould be re ad to support the idea that 4 all alternatives must be ruled out, subsequent Appe llate Division cases ha ve explicitly

retre ated from such a

position. C ompareN.Y. SMSA Ltd. P’Shi p v. Bd. of Adjustment, 734 A.2d 817, 8 2 0 - 2 1 (N . J . S u

p e r . C t . Ap p . D i v . 1 9 9 9 ) , w i th O c e a n C o u n tyC e llu lar T e l. C o . v . T o w n sh ip o f L a k e w o o d B d . o f

A d ju stm e n t (L a k e w o o d ), 8 0 0 A .2 d 8 9 1 , 8 9 9 -9 0 0 (N .J. S u p e r. C t. A p p . D i v . 2 0 0 2 ), and Sprint Spectrum, Ltd. P’Shi p v. Z oning B d. of Adjustment (L eonia) , 823 A.2d 87, 98 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2003)).

- 7- t he gene r al w el far e i s s erved bec aus e the us e i s pecul i ar l yfi t t ed t o t he s peci fi c l ocat i on forw hi ch the var i ance i s s oughti n or dert o be s at i s fi ed. See K ohl v. M ay orof Fai rL aw n, 234 A . 2d 385, 391 ( 1967) . G ener al l y , a s how i ng of nee d pl us r eas ons w hyt he part i cul ar s i t e i s es peci al l yappr opr i at e s at i s fi es t he r equi r ement . See, e. g. , Sout h Pl ai nfi el d, 733 A .2 d a t 4 5 0 . H o w e v e r, an a p p lica n t n e e d n o t sh o w th a t th e p ro p o se d site is th e o n lysite su it ab le fo r th e u se. M ed ici v . B P R C o . , 5 2 6 A . 2 d 1 0 9 , 1 1 2 n . 4 (N . J. 1 9 8 7 ). 4 H er e, A T & T demonst r at ed a ne ed fort he fa ci l i t yatt hatl ocat i on, ( D A 31) , and th e re f o re th e c a se tu rn s o n w h e th e r it sh o w e d re a so n s w h yth e B u ild in g w a s a n e sp e c ially a p p ro p ria te s ite f

o r th e u se . T h is iss u e c e n ter s a ro u n d th e e x ten t to w h ich a p a rty r eques t i ng a var i ance forcel l ul ars er vi ce e qui pm entm us ts how t he i nadequa cyof other site s. T h e B o a rd f

o u n d th a t A T & T h a d f

a iled to c o n sid e r a ltern a tiv e site s in n o n reside n ti all yzo n ed are as. T h e d ispu te aro se f rom the testi m o n yo f o n e o f A T & T ’s e x p e rts, w h o , w h e n a sk e d w h e th e r tw o n o n re sid e n tial in sta llatio n s c o u ld b e u se d to achi eve the s ame cover age, s t at ed thati tw oul d be “pos s i bl e i f [A T & T ] had a c el l s i t e, s ay t o t he s out h poi nt i ng nor t h and a c el l s i t e t o t he nor t h poi nt i ng s out h t o fi l l t he [s ervi ce] gap. ” ( A ppendi x of A ppel l ee ( PA ) 65- 66. ) H ow ever , he al s o t es t i fi ed thatt he B ui l di ngW e se e n o e rro r in th e D istric t C o u rt’s g e n e ra l re a so n in g th a t a z o n in g b o a rd p lau sib ly 5 coul d r ej ecta w i r el es s cover age va r i ance appl i cat i on w i t h r es pectt o a r es i dent i al zone w hen i tfi nds t hata pos s i bi l i t yexi s t s t o pr ovi de the s ame cover age us i ng t w o i ns t al l at i ons in n o n re sid e n tial z o n e s. T h e tw o re c e n t o p in io n s A T & T c ites to su g g e st th a t o n e site is alw ay s b ett er tha n tw o are b o th u n p u b li sh ed (an d o f n o p rec ed en ti al va lue) a n d are m o re nu anced t han t hat. A s noted abo ve, w e beli eve thatt he p art i cularsui t abil i t yqu est i on i s a fac t - i nt ens i ve one, r equi r i ng cons i der at i on of the part i cul ar s of anygi ven s i tuat i on.

- 8- w as “the bes tcandi dat e i n t he ar ea. ” I d. at40. T he conc eptof part i cul ars ui t abi l i t yappea r s t o el ude pr eci s e def i ni t i on. I ti s an extr emel yfac t - bound i nqui r y , w hi ch does notl end i t s el f t o concr et e rul es . T her e ar e a 5 num berof ca s es i n w hi ch N ew J er s eycour t s have ove r tur ned deni al s of var i ance appl i cat i ons w i t h r es pectt o w i r el es s comm uni cat i on fac i l i t i es . See, e. g. , N . Y . SM SA v. B d. of A dj us t m ent( W eeha w ken) , 851 A . 2d 110, 119- 20 ( N . J . Super . C t . A pp. D i v. 2004) ; L eoni a, 823 A . 2d 87; L akew ood, 800 A . 2d 891. W e l ook t o t hes e ca s es for gui dance . I n L akew ood, C om cas ts ought“t o er ectt w el ve ant enna[ s ] on an exi s t i ng m u lti -sto ryb u ild in g in L a k e w o o d , O c e a n C o u n ty .” 8 0 0 A .2 d a t 8 9 3 . “A c c o rd in g to its w r i t t en r es ol ut i on, t he B oar d deni ed [the] appl i cat i on beca us e of: ( 1) t he ‘ detr i m ent al vi s ual i m pact ’ t he ant enna[ s ] w i l l have; ( 2) t he publ i c’ s ‘ fea rand appr ehens i ons ’ about r adi o fr equenc y( R F) emi s s i ons ; and ( 3) t he exi s t ence of others ui t abl e l ocat i ons fort he pr opos ed fa ci l i t y . ” I d. T he bui l di ng w as “l ocat ed i n t he r es i dent i al , offi ce- pr ofes s i onal zon e (R O P ), or hotel dis t ri ct , w hich has am on g it s pri ncipl e uses professi on al off i ces, ch u rch es a n d o ther h o u ses o f w o rship , an d reside n ti al dw ell ing s. ” Id . at 89 4 . T h e C o u rt- 9-

found thatC om cas t ’ s FC C l i cens e es t abl i s hed thatus e pr om ot es t he gene r al w el far e. I d. at897. T he C our tal s o found that“C om cas tpr es ent ed compel l i ng evi dence demonst r at i ng t hati t s s i t e w as par t i cul ar l ys ui t ed fori t s pr opos ed” us e bec aus e i tw as l ocat ed i n a mi xed- us e zone and i tw as “ut i l i zi ng an exi s t i ng s t ructur e, r athert han cons t ruct i ng a monopol e orl at t i ce t ow er . ” I d. at898. T he C our tw as tr oubl ed w i t h t he boar d’ s r ej ect i on of the appl i cat i on bas ed on the ava i l abi l i t yof ( uns peci fi ed) bet t er l ocat i ons , as i tcoul d cr eat e a “ daunt i ng” and pos s i bl y“i m pos s i bl e” bur den of di s pr ovi ng t he pos s i bl e exi s t ence of bett ers i t es . I d. at899. A ccor di ngl y , t he C our tr ever s ed the b o ard ’s po sit ive c ri teri a f ind ing s. A fter rejec ti n g the n eg ati v e c ri teri a f ind ing s, the C o u rt r ever s ed the boar d’ s deni al of the var i ance appl i cat i on. In L e o n ia, S p rin t “a p p lied to th e [ z o n in g b o a rd ] f o r a v a ria n c e to a f

f ix n in e sm a ll ant ennas t o t he r oof of a n exi s t i ng fi ve- s t or yapart m entbui l di ng l ocat ed i n a r es i dent i al zone. ” 823 A . 2d at89. T he B oar d deni ed the appl i cat i on, butt he Law D i vi s i on r ever s ed, a n d th e b o a rd a p p e a led . Id . T h e b u ild in g w a s “ lo c a ted p a rtiallyw ith in th e A -4 S in g le Fam i l yR es i dent i al zoni ng di s t r i ct , and part i al l yw i t hi n t he B M ul t i pl e Fami l yR es i dent i al zoni ng di s t r i ct . ” I d. I n expl ai ni ng w hyt he l ocat i on w as i deal , Spr i nt ’ s expertnot ed that

“ u sin g tw o se p a ra te a n ten n a s in o th e r lo c a tio n s w o u ld b e in su f f icie n t to f

ill th e g a p in cover age. ” I d. at91. T he B oar d’ s expertt es t i fi ed thatt her e w as a pot ent i al t w oin s ta lla tio n s o lu tio n , b u t th a t it w a s in f e ri o r t o S p ri n t’ s p ro p o s e d s o lu tio n . Id . a t 9 7 . N o ti n g that the f

ac ts of the c ase h ad a stri k ing sim il arityto tho se in L ak ew o o d , the C o u rt- 10-

l abel ed the boar d’ s s ugges t i on t hatbet t ers i t es exi s t“conj ectur e” a nd r ever s ed the fi ndi ng t hatt he s i t e w as notpar t i cul ar l ys ui t ed t o t he us e. I d. at98. T he C our tal s o r ej ect ed the negat i ve cr i t er i a fi ndi ng, and af fi r m ed the Law D i vi s i on’ s r ever s al of the boar d. I d. at 100. I n W eeha w ken, t he mostr ece ntcas e of not e, t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on w as fac ed w ith a situ a tio n in w h ich V e riz o n a p p lied f o r p e rm iss io n to in sta ll ro o f to p m icr o c e ll equi pm ent , butt he B oar d deni ed the appl i cat i on beca us e “the pr opos al di d nots at i s fyt he p o s i t i v e o rn e g a t i v e c r i t e r i a f o rt h e g r a n to f

a u s e v a r i a n c e . ” I d . a t1 1 2 . S p e c i f i c a l l y, V er i zon “c hos e a f

i ve- s t or y , r es i dent i al apart m entbui l di ng at117 Par kvi ew A venue a s t he i deal l ocat i on for[a] new cel l s i t e” a nd “pr opos ed t o pl ace fi ft een a nt ennas , arr anged in th re e se ts o f

f iv e , o n th e b u ild in g ’s r o o f.” Id . at 1 1 4 . V e riz o n ’s e n g in e e r, D o m in ic V i l l ecc o, t es t i fi ed thatt he s i t e w as es peci al l ys ui t abl e bec aus e “i tgave [ V er i zon] t he abi l i t yt o s ee a l l t he pr obl em ar eas t hatw e have ” and, i n r es pons e t o a queryas t o w hether a part i cul arw at ert ow erw oul d s uffi ce, expl ai ned w hyi tw oul d not . I d. V i l l ecc o “conc l uded thatt her e w as no ot herpot ent i al l ocat i on t hatw oul d s ol ve the cove r age p ro b lem a s e f

f e c tiv e lya s th e p ro p o se d site .” Id . “T h e B o a rd p re se n ted n o e x p e rts o n its ow n behal f. ” I d. at115. L i ke her e, on appea l , t he zoni ng boar d di d notat t empt t o r el yon t he nega t i ve cr i t er i a, addr es s i ng onl yt he i s s ue of pa r t i cul ars ui t abi l i t y . I d. at121. T he C our ts t r es s ed the fa ctual s i m i l ar i t ybetw een the ca s e and Lakew ood and Leoni a, and r ever s ed the boar d’ s r ej ect i on of the var i ance appl i cat i on.Of c ourse, the burden of showingparticula r suitability

is on the applicant. SeeSmart, 704 6 A.2d at 1278. However, where , as here, an a pplicant demonstrate s the suitability of its chosen location and its belief that no other more- suitable site exis ts through te stimony before the boa

rd, theonus , in

a se ns e , s hif

ts t o th ezon ingbo ard

(o r o ther o bje c tor s) to s ho w why theloc atio n is unsuitable in comparison to other alternatives.

- 11- It is q u ite a p p a re n t f

ro m th e c a se s d isc u ss e d a b o v e th a t th e N e w Je rse ya p p e llate cour t s , w hen appl y i ng t he def er ent i al s ubs t ant i al - evi dence - l i ke s t at e s t andar d, have r ever s ed zoni ng boar d det erm i nat i ons w hen the court s ar e s at i s fi ed thata s how i ng of par t i cul ars ui t abi l i t yhas been made. I n L akew ood, t he pos i t i ve cr i t er i a w er e s at i s fi ed beca us e “[ ( 1) ] t he bui l di ng w as l ocat ed i n t he ce nt erof the ar ea w hi ch w as exper i enci ng bl ocked c el l ul arphone ca l l s ; [( 2) ] t he zone i ncl uded a mi xtur e of us es , i ncl udi ng p ro f e ss io n a l o f

f ice s, sc h o o ls, h o u se s o f w o rsh ip , an d b o th sin g le a n d m u lti -f a m ily dw el l i ngs ; and [( 3) ] t he ca r r i eri nt ended t o ut i l i ze a n exi s t i ng s t ructur e, r athert han cons t ructa monopol e ort ow er . ” Leoni a, 823 A . 2d at96 ( des cr i bi ng t he Lakew ood d ec isi o n ). H ere, (1) on e of A T & T ’s exp ert s t est i fi ed thatt he B uil ding w as “the b est candi dat e i n t he ar ea, ” ( PA 40) , as i tw as l ocat ed i n t he ce nt erof the cove r age ga p; ( 2) al t hough t he zone i s r es i dent i al , t her e ar e nonconf or m i ng us es , i ncl udi ng a gas s t at i on and th e Z e p ter b u ild in g itse lf , w h e re th e m icr o c e ll w o u ld b e p lac e d ; an d (3 ) A T & T in ten d s to u ti li ze an ex ist ing stru cture , instead o f e rec ti n g a n ew m o n o p o le or tow er. T h e B o ard does notdi s put e anyof thes e fa ct s , nordoes i tat t empt t o di s cr edi tt he w i t nes s es t hat t es t i fi ed t o t hem. A l s o, as i n t he ca s es above, t he B oar d di d noti dent i fyanypar t i cul ar s i t es t hatw oul d be s uper i ort o t he B ui l di ng orm ake f i ndi ngs t hatt he expe r t s w er e not 6- 12-

cr edi bl e. T hus , t her e ar e compel l i ng r eas ons as t o w hyt he B ui l di ng i s par t i cul ar l ys ui t ed f o r th e u se (e sp e c iallyth e n o n re sid e n tial n a tu re o f th e b u ild in g s in th e im m e d iate a re a in w h ich th e m icr o c e ll i s to b e lo c a ted ). T h e f a c t th a t an e x p e rt a d m itt e d th a t itis conce i vabl e thatnonr es i dent i al s i t es exi s ton bot h s i des of the gap thatw oul d al l ow cover age of

t he gap thr ough t w o i ns t al l at i ons does notr endert he B ui l di ng uns ui t ed for t he pr opos ed us e. W e conc l ude thatt he B oar d’ s fi ndi ng t hatA T & T fai l ed t o s at i s fyt he pos i t i ve cr i t er i a i s uns uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence i n t he r ecor d. T he B oar d has notappea l ed th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t th e B o a rd ’s n e g a tiv e c riter ia f in d in g is u n s u p p o r t e d b ys u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . Ac c o r d i n g l y , t h e B o a r d ’ s d e n i a l o f AT &T appl i cat i on fora var i ance cannots t and. B eca us e of thi s det erm i nat i on, w e nee d notr eac h th e is s u e o f

w h e th e r t h e m ic ro c e ll c o n s titu te s a n in h e re n tly b e n e f ic ia l u s e . I V. F o r th e re a so n s d isc u ss e d a b o v e , w e w ill a f f irm th e o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.