08-22-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

operations and the legitimate interests of local governments in regulating local zoning matters.” PRB-1 5 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 «I 24. The federal courts that have addressed this ruling have upheld its preemptive effect. See. e.o., Evans v. Board of County Cprrmlrs, 994 F.2d 755, 760-61 (10th Cir. 1993); Themes v. City of Lakeside Park. Kv.. 779 F.2d 1187, 1188-89 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). f Courts applying PRB-1 have discerned two means by which PRB-1 may preempt a local ordinance. First, the local regulation may be preempted on its face. The city's zoning ordinance does not conflict on its face with PRB-1 because it neither bans nor imposes an unvarying height restriction on amateur radio antennas. Se^ Evans V. Board of Countv Comm'rs. 752 F. Supp. 973, 976-77 (D. Colo. 1990); Bulchis v. City of Edmonds, 671 F. Supp. 1270, 1274 (W.D. Wash. 1987).* Second, PRB-1 also preempts a zoning ordinance that a city has not applied in a manner that reasonably accommodates amateur communications. See Evans. 994 F.2d at 761; MacMillan v.—City of Rocky River. 748 F. Supp. 1241, 1248 (N.D. Ohio 1990). The FCC refused to specify a height below which local governments could not 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-1 5 25. ^Pentel's argument that the city's ordinance is void for vagueness is without merit. See'Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357-58 (1983); Williams v. City of Columbia. 906 F.2d 994, 998 (4th Cir. 1990). -5-