07-25-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Initially, wo roust discuss the extent to which this language requires municipalities to yield to aeateur interests. Although some courts have evaluated whether the municipality properly balanced its interests against the federal governaent's interests in promoting amateur communications, i«t ^lUiaMt—Yj—City Sit Columbia. 906 F.2d 994, 998 (4th Cir. 1990): HOCHilHD, 740 F. Supp. at 1248, wa read PRB-1 as requiring municipalities to do more—FRB-1 specifically requires the city to accommodate reasonably amateur communications.’ Sfifi EYftM* 994 F.2d at 762-63. This distinction is important, because a standard that requires a city to accommodate amateur communications in a reasonable fashion is certainly more rigorous than one that simply requires a city to balance local and federal interests when deciding whether to permit a radio antenna. Application of this reasonable accommodation standard, however, does not require the city to allow the amateur to erect any antenna she desires. Instead, it requires only that the city **consider(] the application, ma(k]e factual findings, and attempt^, to negotiate a satisfactory compromise with the applicant.** Hgvaxd V. City of 937 F.2d 1376, 1380 (fth Clr. 1991): m.g.. Kvans. 994 f.2d at 762 (stating that the county was willing to permit a crank-up tower, a shorter tower, or a tower located elsewhere): williams. 906 F.2d at 997 (stating that the city suggested a limitation on the hours the antenna could be extended, and noting that the amateur could apply for a shorter antenna). UrwSer this approach, a local regulation that impairs amateur rad.,0 communications is preempted as applied if the city has not crafted it **to accomawdate reasonably amateur communications** while using *At various places in PRB-i, the FCC sastsur radio comaunicat ions . TRS-l 91 - *i -