07-25-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

operations and the legitiaate interests of local governaents in regulating local zoning matters.** PRB-1 9 22. After weighing local, federal, and amateur interests, the FCC issued a ruling that has a limited preemptive effect on local regulations. See PRB-1 5 24. The federal courts that have addressed this ruling have upheld its preemptive effect. See, e.c.. Evans v. Beard of County Coam*rs. 994 F.2d 755, 760-61 (10th Cir. 1993); Themes v. City of Lakeside Parle. Kv.. 779 F.2d 1187, 1188-89 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). Courts applying PRB-l have discerned two means by trtiich PRB-l may preempt a local ordinance. First, the local regulation nay be preempted on its face. The city's zoning ordinance dees net conflict its face with PRB-l because it neither bans nor imposes an^ unvarying height restriction on amateur radio antennas. See Evans V. Beard of County Cemm'rs. 752 F. Supp. 973, 976-77 (D. Cole. 1990); Bulchis v. City of Edmonds. 671 F. Supp. 1270, 1274 (W.O. Wash. 1987).^ Second, PRB-l also pr?*mpts a zoning ordinance that a city has net applied in a manner that reasonably accemaodates amateur communications. See 994 F.2d at 761; MacMillan v. City of Rocky River. 748 F. Supp. 1241, 1248 (N.O. Ohio 1990). The FCC refused to specify a height below which local governments could net regulate, and instead declared that **local regulations which involve placement, screening, or height of antennas based on health, safety, or aesthetic considerations must be crafted to accommodate reasonably amateur communications, and to represent the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose.** PRB-l 5 25. P*ntel's argument that the city's ordinance is void for vagueness is without merit. See* Kolender v. l^wson. 461 U.S. 352, 357-58 (1983); Will jams v. cltv of Columbia. 906 F.2d 994, 998 (4th Cir. 1990). ;; .. . ^ .... . .v; ' - i. ;;r:. \