The Fairfax County, Va., Board of Supervisors didn’t effectively prohibit wireless services...

(http://xrl.us/bmyweg). AT&T had requested an exception to a Fairfax ordinance prohibiting telecom facilities in residential zoning districts, arguing it could only provide limited in-building and in-vehicle wireless services in the county’s Fort Hunt area absent the exception. The zoning board denied the request, saying AT&T’s proposal didn’t meet the standards for approval of a special use exception under the zoning ordinance. AT&T challenged the decision, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia said the board’s determination was reasonable. The 4th Circuit affirmed, saying the proposed wireless facility “would not be in harmony with the zoning objectives” for the area, holding that the board’s denial was supported by substantial evidence. The court also said AT&T failed to provide evidence to establish a lack of reasonable alternative sites. “The entirety of AT&T’s argument on this point is its bare assertion, based on nothing but the speculation of a consultant,” that national park officials were “loathe” to approve similar wireless facilities on park property. “A plaintiff’s mere reference to a competitor’s prior experience seeking to locate undescribed and unknown facilities in different parks, without more, is insufficient evidence on which to establish a lack of reasonable alternative sites,” wrote Judge Steven Agee for the unanimous three-judge panel. Judge Andre Davis concurred, saying the 4th Circuit has yet to determine “whether a particular level of coverage in a particular geographic area constitutes an effective absence of coverage."