Laserfiche WebLink
/ M <br />• V <br />■ ‘ <br />.'•■11 <br />mm: <br />:y .r- <br />'■> <br />M& -. ■ <br />' : <br />mi - - .m ■ vil <br />!»:'■>' <br />‘I'-'V'-vc. <br />I'"l®v \ ■■ <br />•i <br />f¥' <br />This quantification of Pentel's ability to coraraunicate was thoroughly aischaracterizad by the mayor at his deposition, where he stated that Pentel was able to communicate worldwide 60 to 70 percent of the time, but that she wanted to have reliable worldwide communications 100 percent of the time. One city, councilmember understood Pentel's statements regarding her transmission success, but ethers demonstrated a fuzzy understanding, at best, of Pentel's <br />situation. Although what constitutes "successful** amateur <br />communications is difficult to quantify, the evidence in the record <br />does not justify a finding by the city that Pentel's old antenna <br />enabled her "successfully** to engage in amateur communications, and <br />the city was unreasonable if it so found. On the record before us, <br />the city's first three concerns lack factual support. <br />'9^The city's last reason for denying Pentel's application, that <br />the antenna tower would be unsightly, rests on subjective <br />considerations and is difficult for a reviewing court to evaluate. <br />This reason is undercut, however, by the city's willingness to <br />allow Pentel to keep her present roof-mounted antenna, which <br />reaches a height only slightly below that of her proposed antenna <br />tower, and by the city's allowance of a similar antenna tower <br />nearly, we acknowledge the possible aesthetic difference between <br />an antenna toiler and a roof-mounted antenna, but there is no <br />indication in the record that th* city attempted to find any <br />compromise that would have accommodated Pentel's amateur <br />communications. <br />The city's decision to grant a variance that allows Pentel to <br />continue using a wholly inadequate antenna does net constitute an <br />accommodation in any practical sense. In addition, because the <br />city did not reasonably accommodate Pentel, it obviously did not <br />use the least restrictive means available to meet its legitimate <br />zoning purposes. We therefore hold that the city's zoning <br />ordinance as applied in this case is preempted by PRB-1. <br />-9- <br />■m <br />>1 <br />p;,- <br />V y-T^ y'-: