True, the residents’ visual impact study was prepared by a landscape architect with limited qualification for that task; but the residents were not required to offer any expert testimony at all. More broadly, this Court has refused “to create by fiat a constitutional requirement that all zoning boards in this Circuit use expert testimony or written studies to support their decisions.” Harlen Assocs. v. Inc. Vill. of Mineola, 273 F.3d 494, 501 n. 3 (2d Cir.2001). Third, we reject Omnipoint’s argument that the Board gave improper deference to community opposition. In Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d at 495-96, we declined to rule whether constituent comments amount to substantial evidence, and noted tension between Omnipoint Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 20 F.Supp.2d 875, 880 (E.D.Pa.1998) (<HOLDING>), and AT & T Wireless PCS v. City Council of
holding that unsubstantiated personal opinions expressing generalized concerns  about the aesthetic and visual impacts on the neighborhood do not amount to substantial evidence holding that personal disputes do not constitute persecution holding that nontreating physicians opinions are entitled to little weight when contradictory to treating physicians opinions and will not constitute substantial evidence standing alone holding that loss of substantial clients does not amount to an unconscionable injury holding that the district court must make findings on the record as to the basis for its conclusion about the amount of actual loss