07-25-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ilsi lih-' f'iWn.:- : )v ' - *..?•* ,i'.'r • i---' ■ II.w« review de novo the district court's grant of sunaary judgnent. United States ex rel. Glass v. Medtronirr jpg,, 957 p.2d 60S, 607 (8th Cir. 1992). Because the parties agree that no material facts are in dispute, summary judgment is appropriate in favor of the party that is entitled as a matter of law to a judgment in its favor. SMA Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); ceiot#v gam, v. catrett. 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 326 (1986). Cases centering on zoning regulations governing amateur radio antenna towers present a unique tension among the various parties' interests. On the one hand, a local municipality, through the exercise of its traditional police powers, may regulate the height and placement of radio antenna towers erected in residential districts. A municipality's motivations for such regulation include the possibilities that an antenna may bloclc the line of sight of pedestrians or drivers; constitute a prominent eyesore that also may interfere with a scenic view; fall on nearby residences; or decrease property values. Amateur radio operators, on the other hand, plainly have an interest in saintaining successful amateur eoamunicatiens and in sustaining a strong network of radio amateurs. The federal government's interests are aligned with those of the amateurs, for amateur radio volunteers afford reliable emergency preparedness, national security, and disaster relief communications. Because there is a direct correlation between an amateur's antenna height and her ability successfully to transmit and receive radio signals, foderal interests are furthered when local regulations do not unduly restrict the erection of amateur radio antennas. The FCC was attempting to referee the tension between these interests when it issued PRB-1, in which it attempted "to striJee a balance between the federal interest in promoting amateur -4- I ; m E-i’ . .-■•b -if WJ1.7 .C ' 7' ’