07-25-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Thlr. quantification of 1-cntel'n ability to communicate wan -horouqhly mischaracterited by the mayor at his dapoaltion, whore h. stated that Pentel was able to communicate worldwide 60 to 70 percent of the tine, but that she wanted to heve reliable worldwide cornmunlcatlons 100 percent of the time. One city councUmember understood Pentel'. statements reqardlnq her tranemlsmlon success, but others demonstrated a fuiiy understanding, at best, of Pentel's situation. Mthouqh what constitutes -successful- amateur communications 1. difficult to quantify, the evidence In the record doe. not justify a finding by the city that Pentel'. old antenna enabled her -.uccessfully" to engage in amateur communication., and the city was unreasonable If It so found. On the record before us, th« city'* first thr«« concerns lack factual support. The city's last reason for denying Pentel'. application, that the antenna tower would be unsightly, rest, on .ubj.ctive consideration, and is difficult for a r«vi«»lng court to evaluate. This reason 1. undercut, however, by the city's willingness to allow Pentel to keep her present roof-mounted antenna, which reaches a height only .lightly below that of her proposed antenna tower, and by the city's allowenca of a similar antenna tower nearby. «e acknowledge the possible aesthetic difference between an antenna tower and a roof-mounted antenna, but ~ Indication in the record that the city attempted to l compromise that would haw. accommodated Pentel'. ama eur cowBunications. The city's decision to grant a variance that allows Pentel to continue using a wholly inadequate antenna doe. not accommodation In any practical sense. In ^Idltion. becau. city did not reasonably accommodate pentel. It obv ous u.e the least restrictive mean, evallabl. to meet It. roning purposes. therefore hold that the city's coning ordinance as appUmd m this case i. pr.cmptwl by P*B-l.