My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-25-1994 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1994
>
07-25-1994 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2023 9:50:04 AM
Creation date
12/11/2023 9:43:35 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
266
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
-if- <br />•>1 <br />■V- <br />\T^ - <br />I®,^f'>S'i5;. l?r,1%?j;'‘f"'# lii^ <br />III <br />'M <br />' 'j;v^ <br />'^lii <br />V'-iS-'-vte. <br />U0. <br />|l <br />Initially, we must discuss the extent to which this language requires municipalities to yield to amateur interests. Although some courts have evaluated whether the municipality properly balanced its interests against the federal government's interests in promoting amateur communications, see miliams v, citv of <br />Columbia. 906 F.2d 994, 998 (4th Cir. 1990); MacMillan. 748 F. <br />Supp. at 1248, we read PRB-1 as requiring municipalities to do <br />more—PRB*1 specifically requires the city to accommodate <br />reasonably amateur communications.’ See £vadi« 994 F.2d at 762-63. <br />This distinction is important, because a standard that requires a <br />city to accommodate amateur communications in a reasonable fashion <br />is certainly more rigorous than one that simply requires a city to <br />balance local and federal interests when deciding whether to permit <br />a radio antenna. <br />■* <br />Application of this reasonable accommodation standard, <br />however, dees not require the city to allow the amateur to erect <br />any antenna she desires. Instead, it requires only that the city <br />**considern the application, ma()c]e factual findings, and attempt[] <br />* to negotiate a satisfactory compromise with the applicant." Howard <br />V. Citv of Burlingame. 937 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1991); see. <br />. e.g.. SyBxift# 994 F.2d at 762 (stating that the county was willing <br />to permit a cran)c-up tower, a shrrter tower, or a tower located <br />elsewhere); williams. 906 F.2d it 997 (stating that the city <br />suggested a limitation on the ho^.:s the antenna could be extended, <br />and noting that the amateur could apply for a shorter antenna). <br />Under this approach, a local regulation that impairs amateur radio <br />communications is preempted as applied if the city has not crafted <br />it "to aeeemnodate reasonably amateur communications" while using <br />’At various places in PRB-l, the FCC states that, in <br />considering the issue before it, it weighed federal and amateur <br />operator interests against those of local governments. After <br />balancing these interests, the standard that the FCC concluded was <br />appropriate was that a local government must reasonably accommodate <br />amateur radio communications. See PRB-l ff 22, 24. <br />-6- <br />|; <br />_ _ <br />(jk: , <br />'v.j';'.. ■ ■■ <br />■ ■ ■ ■ <br />.si. - j ■ <br />, f 4- . <br />j- i- * ^ .V.: <br />> s <br />•'v <br />VI <br />h-- i <br />'*rri
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.