Pierce Estates Corp. v. Bridgewater Tp. Zoning Bd. of Adj

In Pierce Estates Corp. v. Bridgewater Tp. Zoning Bd. of Adj., 303 N.J. Super. 507, 517, 697 A.2d 195 (App.Div.1997), the Court held that an applicant relying on the inherently beneficial nature of a communications tower to improve telecommunications must prove that its tower actually would have that effect. The plaintiff there, who was not in the telecommunications business, had asserted that its tower would "improve communications," but was unable to show that the tower would be used to fill identified gaps in coverage, improve mobile phone communications, or provide real emergency benefits. Ibid.