My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-22-1994 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1994
>
08-22-1994 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2023 10:22:30 AM
Creation date
12/11/2023 10:19:26 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.
/
283
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
r <br />Initially, wo nust discuss the extent to which this language <br />requires nunicipalities to yield to amateur interests. Although <br />some courts have evaluated whether the municipality properly <br />balanced its interests against the federal government's interests <br />in promoting amateur communications, seg Williams y, qji-v nf <br />Calcnbia, 906 F.2d 994, 998 (4th Cir. 1990); MacMillan ,48 F. <br />supp. at 1248, we read PRB-1 as requiring municipalities to do <br />moreāPRB-1 specifically requires the city to accommodate <br />reasonably amateur communications.* see Evans. 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 th.n.i one that simply requires a city to <br />balance local and federal interests when deciding whether to permit <br />a radio antenna. <br />Application of this reasonable acconnodatlon standard, <br />er, does not require the city to allow the amateur to erect <br />any antenna she desires. Instead, it requires only that the city <br />"considerf] the application, ma[k]e factual findings, and attenpt[] <br />to negotiate a satisfactory compromise with the applicant." Howard <br />V. City of Rnriinqame, 937 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1991); see. <br />994 F.2d at 762 (stating that the county was willing <br />to permit a crank-up tower, a shorter tower, or a tower located <br />elsewhere); Williams, 906 F.2d at 997 (stating that the city <br />suggested a limitation on the hours 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 accommodate reasonably amateur communications" while using <br />consider,the FCC states that, in <br />operator i^tere<ir^^^^ before it, it weighed federal and amateur <br />balancina those of local governments. After <br />app^Spriatfwfl standard that the FCC concluded was <br />amateSr t ^ government must reasonably accommodateamateur radio communications. ^ PRB-1 22, 24. <br />-6-
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.