Opinion ID: 200116
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Impact on Residential Properties and Neighborhood Aesthetics

Text: 24 The Board's second reason for denying plaintiffs' application for a conditional use permit was that their proposed tower was too close to residential abutters and had an adverse impact on neighborhood aesthetics. Under the Telecommunications Facility Ordinance, the Town is authorized to consider the proximity of proposed towers to residential development and their impact on the surrounding aesthetics. Art. VII, § 7.80(II)(B). 25 The two proposed sites are largely indistinguishable with respect to their proximity to residential areas. Both sites have residential abutters and commercial businesses within close proximity. They are also essentially equidistant from the areas zoned for commercial use. Thus, the proposals are quite similar, if not identical, with respect to this factor. 26 In regard to the aesthetic impact of the towers, the Board considered comments from residential abutters to the proposed sites. See, e.g., Todd, 244 F.3d at 61 (finding substantial evidence of adverse visual impact where residents specifically complained that the proposed tower was of a different magnitude than anything else in the vicinity and was inconsistent with the residential uses around it). Several residential neighbors to the plaintiffs' site criticized SBA/ATC's tower for its adverse aesthetic impact. Resident abutters Elisha and Steven Blaisdell objected to the proposed tower, arguing that it would destroy the picturesque quality of the surrounding area. Mariah Champagne submitted a letter characterizing plaintiffs' tower as an eyesore that should be situated in a more rural location. She also took issue with the fact that the tower would be located on property that was once listed by the state as being historically significant. Tina Staublin echoed concerns over the adverse aesthetic impact the tower would have on the neighborhood. Finally, Andrea and Almus Kenter expressed their displeasure over having a clear view of the proposed tower from their home. They also emphasized the fact that the tower's construction would be inconsistent with the surrounding bucolic area. 27 Thus, nearly forty percent of the residential abutters to the plaintiffs' proposed site opposed the application on aesthetic grounds. Conversely, the Board did not receive a single aesthetic objection to the American Tower proposal. Moreover, at least one Board member attended a crane test on American Tower's proposed site, which involved elevating a crane to 180 feet to determine the visibility of the proposed tower from the surrounding neighborhood. The results of the test demonstrated that the crane was very difficult to see, which may explain why no aesthetic objections were made to the American Tower proposal. 28 Plaintiffs largely ignore the results of this empirical test and concentrate their attack on what they perceive to be the easier target: the residential abutters' comments. SBA/ATC argue that local residents cannot defeat a tower proposal merely by trumpeting negative comments that are applicable to any tower, regardless of location. Todd, 244 F.3d at 61. Because they characterize the residential abutters' comments as generalized aesthetic objections, plaintiffs conclude that the Board incorrectly relied upon this evidence to distinguish between the two proposals. 29 Though several of the abutters' objections to the visual impact of the plaintiffs' tower specifically addressed why the proposed facility was inappropriate for the chosen site, we will assume, for the sake of argument, that the abutters' comments were so general that they could apply to any tower. Even assuming as much, however, the Board correctly relied on this evidence in light of the facts of this unusual case. As noted, courts have consistently held that a few generalized expressions of concern with `aesthetics' cannot serve as substantial evidence on which [a town] could base [a] denial. Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d at 496. However, these rulings have not been made in the context of a town deciding between two proposed towers. Rather, they have been made in cases in which towns have rejected the only proposed tower application before them. See, e.g., Todd, 244 F.3d at 52; Preferred Sites v. Troup County, 296 F.3d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir.2002); Telespectrum, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Ky., 227 F.3d 414, 418 (6th Cir.2000); Omnipoint Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Pine Grove, 181 F.3d 403, 407 (3d Cir.1999). In the latter context, courts fear that local governments may be relying on abutters' general aesthetic objections to mask a de facto prohibition of wireless service. See generally Todd, 244 F.3d at 61. 30 In contrast, the instant case, given the mode of analysis we have employed, involves the Board's comparison between two competing proposals and its selection of American Tower's application over the plaintiffs'. The fact that the Board ultimately granted a permit to the plaintiffs' competitor demonstrates that the Board is not generally hostile to the construction of telecommunication towers. In this context, when a planning board has decided to construct a tower and must decide which of several proposed towers to construct, it is perfectly reasonable for the Board to consider, and be swayed by, the general aesthetic concerns of residential abutters, especially where, as here, the proposed towers are otherwise virtually identical. 31 In sum, whereas both applications are identical with respect to proximity to residential abutters, there is undisputed evidence that the plaintiffs' application would have a stronger adverse aesthetic impact on the surrounding neighborhood.