With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458, at 208, reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.A.A.N. at 222). Thus a zoning board can treat one provider’s application differently from another provider’s application based on “traditional bases of zoning regulation.” City of Va. Beach, 155 F.3d at 427. Plaintiff does not carry its burden to establish unreasonable discrimination. Plaintiff cites a map showing the city has approved two other permits for wireless facilities in residential zones. R. 779-81. However, neither this map nor plaintiff establishes any relevant similarity (other than the common zoning designation) between those other two locations and the Golden Road location at issue here. The record shows the other facilities are “at different locations within the [city].” MetroPCS, 259 F.Supp.2d at 1012 (<HOLDING>). In fact, the board specifically distinguished

A: holding that an over twoyear delay without any excuse was unreasonable as a matter of law
B: holding that a mere showing facilities were permitted in different locations within a district was not unreasonable discrimination under the telecommunications act as a matter of law
C: holding that an eightmonth delay without excuse was unreasonable as a matter of law
D: holding that a local commission had not failed to act on an application within time limit set by state law and consequently had not failed to act within a reasonable time under telecommunications act
B.