New Cingular Wireless PCS v. Sussex County Board of Adjustment, 65 A.3d 607

AT&T sought a Sussex County special use exception to erect a 100-foot cell tower near Bethany Beach, on a commercially zoned parcel at 32919 Coastal Highway.
Under Sussex County Code, a special use exception is required for towers within 500 feet of residential zones; collocation on existing structures is permitted without a special use exception.
AT&T submitted evidence that no existing structures within a two-mile radius were available for collocation, as required by the ordinance.
Sea Pines Village Condominium Association and nearby residents opposed the application; the Board denied AT&T’s request, citing Bethany Beach’s representation that its water tower would not be available for collocation.
Bethany Beach officials later indicated they were unwilling to negotiate or permit use of the water tower, a point acknowledged by the Superior Court’s opinion, which questioned whether Bethany’s actions were “cricket.”
The Superior Court affirmed the Board, but the Delaware Supreme Court held the Board applied the wrong legal standard, requiring vacatur so AT&T can reapply under the correct standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the Board apply the correct standard for a special use exception?	AT&T: Board used too heavy a burden; should apply “will not substantially affect adversely” standard.	Board: applied standard as interpreted under the ordinance.	Board erred; standard vacated and remand not allowed.
Was the Board’s decision based on erroneous facts about water-tower availability?	AT&T showed Bethany Beach would not allow use of the water tower; the Board relied on false premises.	Board relied on representations at hearing.	Erroneous facts tainted the decision; vacate so AT&T may reapply.
May the court remand or simply vacate for reapplication under correct standard?	Remand should permit correction within administrative process.	Statute allows reversal/affirmation; Hellings permits remand in some contexts.	Remand not authorized; decision vacated to permit new application.

Hellings v. Bd. of Adjustment, 734 A.2d 641 (Del. 1999) (proper legal standard prerequisite to substantial evidence review; cannot substitute its own standard)
Bd. of Adjustment v. Verleysen, 36 A.3d 326 (Del.2012) (statutory review standards for Board decisions; substantial evidence framework)
Chase Alexa, LLC v. Kent Cty. Levy Ct., 991 A.2d 1148 (Del.2010) (illustrates standards for administrative review in zoning matters)
Oceanport Indus., Inc. v. Wilm. Stevedores, Inc., 636 A.2d 892 (Del.1994) (background on administrative decision review principles)