Opinion ID: 200116
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Exhaust Alternative Opportunities

Text: 34 The final reason for denying SBA/ATC's application for a conditional use permit was that plaintiffs had failed to exhaust all other reasonable opportunities. Pursuant to the Telecommunications Facility Ordinance, the Board is directed to [p]ermit the construction of new towers only where all other reasonable opportunities have been exhausted. Art. VII, § 7.80(II)(D). 35 The only other reasonable opportunity available here was the competing proposal. However, the plaintiffs submitted their application to the Planning Board two months prior to American Tower's application. Thus, at the time SBA/ATC applied, American Tower's non-existent application could not have provided a reasonable opportunity that the plaintiffs were required to exhaust. 36 The Board also rejected the plaintiffs' application because it found that plaintiffs had failed to consider the availability of existing sites. More specifically, because the Board granted American Tower's application before its final vote to reject the plaintiffs' application, the Board decided not to approve the plaintiffs' application because a reasonable alternative opportunity existed — that is, American Tower's recently approved site. 37 However, given the comparative framework we have employed, this factor does not provide a basis for choosing American Tower's proposal over the plaintiffs'. It assumes that American Tower has been selected and faults the plaintiffs for not exploring that existing option. Thus, this justification assumes precisely what we are trying to determine: whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's selection of American Tower's proposal over the plaintiffs'.