Laserfiche WebLink
. . ’'A' <br />• • • <br />observationsth®*® '!l®'leasonabte amiteu? aceommodatareasonable amateu7commuScattons^S^^ 3?e®minK <br />8tea*hy “'oc7S!5Scl° tnd wlw <br />^ rtiore substantial in size ani??ieight In ordeMo <br />=S'r '"i® <br />^ balancing of local and federal interests <br />stetedh^^ ^ EfiOte! speafically rejected that approach to applying PRB-1 when it <br />sa •^sss-'j'srf ■ists* :i»^ --------- tv# aiiidioui inidrf^Sl$.Although some courts have evaluated whether the <br />municipality properly balanced its interest against the federal <br />3g“ggSaiivligre*l <br />" •'^quires the city to accommodate <br />Lt ^mmunlc«tions. See, Evans. 994 F.2d <br />^j^^4-7 o3. This V, .motion is Important, because a standard <br />that r^uires a dty to accommodate amateur <br />corf.rnjnlcations in a reasonable fashion is certainly more <br />simply requires the dty to balance <br />^ federal interests when deciding whether to permit a <br />radio antenna. Pente^l supra at p.1264. <br />fw«^?h?JSi clearly stated that a simple balandng test will not be suffident. <br />7 k municipal;” to “'r^wTably a.^mrdaT“rateir <br />TOMin rn^mateun^® reasonable ecnommodation falls or. the city and <br />®tt®rnpt to summarize this legal and technical maze. First of all let me <br />assure arn not aware of anyone who claims PRB-1 requires a municipality to <br />simply acquiesce in any request made by an amateur radio operator for a per.mit <br />1 ®^®ct the locsl authohties legitimate purpose. I <br />suggest that under PRB-1 botli the base ordinance and any exception process as