Opinion ID: 761234
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Aesthetics

Text: 30 In New York, aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions. See Suffolk Outdoor Advertising, 43 N.Y.2d at 490, 402 N.Y.S.2d 368, 373 N.E.2d 263. Normally, we would not look far beyond the Town's citing of aesthetics to find a valid basis for a local zoning decision. However, under the TCA, we can find that aesthetics qualify as a permissible ground for denial of a permit only if we can conclude that there was more that a mere scintilla of evidence, Universal Camera, 340 U.S. at 477, 71 S.Ct. 456, before the Board on the negative visual impact of the cell sites. 4 31 Very few residents expressed aesthetic concerns at the hearings, and those who did express them did not articulate specifically how the proposed cell sites would have an adverse aesthetic impact on the community. In fact, a few comments suggested that the residents who expressed aesthetic concerns did not understand what the proposed cell sites would actually look like, see A-293-94 (objecting to a mass of spaghetti of wires); A-303 (suggesting that antennae would project from the top of the water tank like a small birthday cake with candles). AT & T proposed mounting the antennae on the catwalk of the water towers and painting the antennae the same color as the towers. It is not clear if residents will be able even to see the antennae, let alone experience a negative visual impact on the community. 32 Courts have split as to the weight to be afforded to constituent testimony on aesthetics, compare Omnipoint Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 20 F.Supp.2d 875, 880 (E.D.Pa.1998) (holding that unsubstantiated personal opinions expressing generalized concerns ... about aesthetic and visual impacts on the neighborhood do not amount to substantial evidence) with AT & T Wireless PCS, 155 F.3d at 430 (holding that constituent aesthetic concerns could constitute compelling evidence for City Council). Even if we were to adopt the Fourth Circuit's more deferential standard toward the evidentiary value of constituent comment, on which we take no position, the volume and specificity of the comments in the proceedings here do not reach even the low threshhold set by that decision. See id. Therefore, we find that the few generalized expressions of concern with aesthetics cannot serve as substantial evidence on which the Town could base the denials.