Laserfiche WebLink
. nifvi OlcllU Hlaintiff's Claim Tower Height Preemption?Court’s HoldingHoward v.City of Btulirtgarne937 F.2ci 1376 (OlhCir. 1991) California Denial of application to increase antenna height.51 feet Paitial preemption City Iree to deny permit as long as it tins considered the application, made factual findings, and attempted to negotiate satisbictory compromise.Giiscfike V.City of Oklahoma City <br />763 F 2(J 379 <br />(1985) <br />Oklafioma <br />Challenge city’s tilankel height <br />zoning restnclions. <br />78 feet No explicit FCC action to preempt state law.Neither federal statutes nor regulations <br />preempt City ol Oklahoma City’s zoning <br />regulations regarding radio antennas <br />In ro Medina <br />Resolution 80 18 <br />(no Clio hero) <br />Minnesota <br />Application for <br />amended conditional <br />use permit and <br />vaiiance. <br />4 at 65 feet <br />2 at 70 feet <br />No. reasonable <br />accommodation <br />City council granted conditional use <br />|)ermil subject to ceitain limitations, <br />including licight. <br />Oodony v. <br />Incorporated Village of <br />Sands Point <br />681 F.Supp. 1009 <br />(E.D.N.Y. 1987) <br />Now York <br />Ctiallenged denial of <br />zoning variance. <br />86 feet <br />0 <br />Yes.Summary judgment denied declaring <br />city unreasonable in limiting antenna <br />freight to 56.5 feet. City also failed to <br />make findings. Court ordered parties to <br />at live at compromise. Reversed and <br />remanded case to district court for <br />entry of summary judgment in favor or <br />Pentel. City’s fieight limitations of <br />accessory buildings at 25 feet. <br />Penlel v. <br />City of Mendota Heights <br />8ih Cif. Couit of Ap|)eals <br />Docket No 93 1026 <br />(Oct 1993) <br />Minnesota <br />Challenged denial to <br />extend antenna 11 5 <br />feel <br />proposed <br />68 leet <br />No, leasonatile <br />aixommodation. <br />PRB-1 requires tire City reasonably to <br />accomiirodato Peniel’s needs as air <br />aiiraieui radio operator. Reversed and <br />renranded to tire district court lor <br />summ.riy judgment in favor ol Pentel