Laserfiche WebLink
AMATEUR RADIO CASES--------------------------------------------------------—Case Name and State Plaintiff's Claim Tower Height Preemption?Court's Holding ||Bulchis V. City of Edmonds671 F.Supp. 1290 (W D. Wash. 1987) Washington Denial of conditional use permit.70 feet1 No Ordinance not invalid on Its face.Ordinance did not balance local needs 1against plaintiff's needs. Process by 1which City denied his application 1invalid. 1Stiil V. Michaels <br />791 F.Supp 240 <br />(D.Afiz. 1992) <br />Arizona <br />Nuisance.i <br />K <br />[ <br />LI <br />ii <br />Yes FCC diroctly spoke to radio frequency <br />inleifcience. <br />Common law nuisance claim concerning radio frequency interference <br />preempted by FCA and obstructs <br />FCC's ability to regulate sucfi matters. | <br />Williams V. <br />City of Columbia <br />906 F.2d 994 <br />(4lhCif. 1990) <br />South Carolina <br />Civil lights.55 to 65 feet Limited preemption policy <br />calling for leasonatilo <br />accommodation. <br />City sought compromise and applied <br />zoning ordinance in compliance with <br />FCC regulations, thus, height limitation <br />imposed was valid. <br />Izzo V. <br />Borough ol River Edge <br />843 F.2d 765 <br />(3rd Cir. 1988) <br />New Jersey <br />Challenge legality of <br />height prohibition. <br />40 feet Limited rather than total <br />preemption. <br />Vacated and remanded to district court <br />to adjudicate reasonableness of 35 foot <br />height limitation imposed by local <br />zoning ordinance. 1 <br />■ -y <br />’A <br />&._ i.Ul.■1—~Twiiiitrfr1ig‘- iTB ^ —1..—«. .___