Amateur Radio - Legal Library Documents not on CD-ROM accompanying the ARRL book Antenna Zoning: - American Red Cross Letter to ARRL - GIF
- Rohn Letter on Fall Radius of a Guyed Tower - PDF
Legal documents not readily available from free published internet legal sources, and not on CD-ROM accompanying the ARRL book Antenna Zoning: Evans v. Burruss (MD Court of Appeals, 2007) http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/coa/2007/1a07.pdf Ham (N3HBX) applied for building permit (not special permit, not variance) for four 190' antenna support structures. Permits were granted as a matter of right. He began construction. Over a year later, a new bylaw promulgated. Court holds rights have vested. Held, the grant of a building permit is a ministerial act. No notice to neighbors is required. Disclosure: K1VR was of counsel in subsequent litigation, signing the Motion for Summary Judgment when the neighbors claimed private nuisance. After the MSJ and brief were filed, the neighbors withdrew the claim, with prejudice. - Motion for Summary Judgment - PDF
- Statement of Material Facts - PDF
- Statement of Grounds and Authorities - PDF
Naumburg K5HAB (Bernalillo Co., NM, 2004) - Needs Case (as submitted) - PDF or DOC
- Grant of Special Exception - PDF
Needs case created by Gerry Smith, W6TER.
Support structure of 80 feet, with 12 feet of antennas on top, total: 92', on 0.892 acres. Disclosure: K1VR was of counsel in this matter. Chedester v. Town of Whately (MA, 2003) - Complaint - WPD
- PTC Memorandum - WPD
- Trial Memo - WPD
- Pltf Rqstd Rulings of Law - WPD
- Pltf Rqstd Findings of Fact - WPD
- Superior Court Decision - PDF
Courtesy of Atty. Alan Seewald. Bylaw with 35’ maximum height preempted by PRB-1 and state statute. KB1IPR’s building permit for 140' structure reinstated. Disclosure: K1VR appeared for the applicant before the town board. Snook v. City of Missouri City, Texas (2003) - Final Judgment - PDF
- Order - PDF
Courtesy of Orin Snook, KB5F (holding that 65' not adequate to conduct effective communications). Ham constructed 114' on 0.958 acre lot in residential subdivision. City ordinance preempted by PRB-1. Disclosure: K1VR consulted to Snook in this matter. Marchand v. Town of Hudson (NH, 2001) - KØTV Brief to NH Supreme Court - PDF or DOC
- Justification of Need - ZIP Package
- ZBA Decision on Remand - PDF
- Decision at 147 NH 380, 788 A.2d 250 (NH 2001), or
http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2001/march221.htm
Courtesy of Atty. Mike Raisbeck, K1TWF. Finds three 100’ structures to be an ordinary accessory use for KØTV. Disclosure: K1VR consulted to the applicant. Palmer v. City of Saratoga Springs (NY, 2001) - Complaint - PDF or DOC
- Federal Rule 34 Demand for Production of Documents - PDF or DOC
- Decision at 180 F.Supp 2d 379 (NDNY 2001) or PDF
Courtesy of Atty. Albert J. Millus, Jr., WB2EQR, who represented Palmer, N2NVH (holding absolute height limit of 20' preempted, as "an unvarying height restriction on amateur radio antennas would be facially invalid in light of PRB-1"; and request for information on RFI was "unreasonable on its face.") Anderson v. Planning Board of Islip (Supreme Court, Suffolk Co., NY, 1998) N2TX sought a special permit for a retractable (22'=>85') preexisting antenna system. Article 78 petition granted as Court finds all six arguments by Islip are arbitrary and capricious. Korins v. Kornienko et al (Superior Court NJ, 1997) - Final Judgment - DOC
- Petition to the Supreme Court of NJ (Denied) - DOC
Neighbors sued Kornienko (K2WK), claiming (private) nuisance due to RFI. Held: No factual basis plus 47 USC 301; dismissed with prejudice. In 1999, the Supreme Court of NJ declined to hear the case. Final Judgment courtesy of Walt Kornienko, K2WK. Baskin v. Bath Twp. (OH, 1996) - Unpublished Opinion - PDF or DOC
The late W8PGD sought permission for five towers. Court found fall zone requirement to be void and unenforceable as a failure to reasonably accommodate. Kleinhaus v. Town of Cortlandt (NY, 1996) - Supreme Court Decision - PDF
- ZBA Final Decision and Order - PDF
Zoning code contained a 35' height limit. W2XX applied for 120' on a 1.4 acre property; denied. Held: FCC regulations have the force of statutes. Merely balancing town interests against Federal government's interests in promoting amateur communications is not enough. Denial of variance set aside as irrational, arbitrary and capricious. On remand to ZBA, 100' tower approved. Courtesy of J.P. Kleinhaus, W2XX. Rush Creek Golf Club v. City of Corcoran and Fraasch (MN, 1996) Courtesy of Atty. John B. Bellows, KØQB. KØSF wins an appeal of the grant of a permit for his 130' tower. Damage to Trumpeter Swans wholly speculative, does not appreciably impair wetlands resources, less visual impact than farmyard equipment and nearby mobile home park, not a nuisance. - Fraasch Written Argument - PDF
Pentel v. City of Mendota Heights (MN, 1994) Courtesy of Atty. John B. Bellows, KØQB Bay v. ZBA of New Canaan (Superior Court at Stamford, CT, 1993) - Unpublished Opinion - PDF or DOC
Court finds antenna is an accessory use to a single-family residence, that multiple-antennas are customarily and reasonably incident to a single-family residence, and that the height, a 72' structure plus a 10' mast (total: 82') was necessary. Court accepts separation of 9' between antennas as necessary to avoid interaction. Heinemann v. Town of Lyme, et al (USDC CT, 1993) - Pltf Memo of Law in Opp to Def's Mtn in Limine - PDF
- USDC Ruling on Mtn Sum Judg - PDF
- USDC Order - PDF
- Local press coverage of decisions - PDF
Bylaw with 35' maximum height, more height by Special permit. USDC orders W1YG's Special Permit granted as applied for (78'). Parma Heights v. Haase (OH Municipal Court, 1992) - Judgment with Opinion - PDF or DOC
Criminal misdemeanor case. K8VI not guilty of creating a public nuisance. Courtesy of Atty. Robert M. Winston, W2THU. MacMillan v. Rocky River (OH) (USDC, Northern District of Ohio, 1990) MacMillan I may be found at 748 F.Supp. 1241 (1990). This is MacMillan II, a grant of attorney's fees under §1988 by a Federal District Court after finding the bylaw valid but preempted as applied. Courtesy of Atty. Robert M. Winston, W2THU. 1985 - The Year of PRB-1 Borowski et al v. City of Burbank (USDC Northern District Ill., 1984) The case may be found at 101 FRD 59 (ND IL, 1984). This is the Consent Decree. This case is pre-PRB-1, but it is an antenna case where class action status was granted against a city in Federal court. It may have a positive effect when a ham's lawyer attaches it to a letter in a situation where the zoning ordinance fails to comply with PRB-1. - Consent Decree, signed by Nicholas J. Bua, USDJ - PDF
Guschke v. City of Oklahoma City (USDC Western District Okla, 1982) This final outcome of this lawsuit predates PRB-1.The ultimate court decision is widely available, but irrelevant, because, again, it was decided before PRB-1. Gushke (N5SW) challenged an ordinance that allowed 35' by right, up to 50' by Special use Permit, with an absolute ban on antennas above the height of 50'. - Plaintiff's Proposed Conclusions of Law and Argument - PDF
Spencer v. County Court of Clay County, MO (Circuit Court of Clay County, Seventh Judicial Circuit of Missouri, 1983) - Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order - PDF
Spencer (then ABØI, now K7KF), planned to erect five towers (150’, 138’, 118’, 75’, and 40’). Application for a special permit denied after hearings. Court finds ordinance unconstitutional, as it did not make it clear as to whether a special permit was required or not , and had no standards. Finding that the federal government had preempted the field. No direct correlation between height and safety or aesthetics. Direct correlation netweem height and reliatbility and range of transmission. Finding that this involves a prior restraint on non-commercial speech with no rational justification or standards, and there are lesser restrictive alternatives. Pirtle v. Wade, 1979 OK CIV APP 4, 593 P.2d 1098 (1979) Suit in equity by homeowners to enforce a restrictive covenant which did not mention exterior antennas, but requires only “residential purposes.” Covenant forbids a “noxious or offensive trade or enterprise . . . which may be, or become, anything annoying or a nuisance to the neighborhood.” Wade applied for approval and received no response. Held: This is a hobby “within the normal range of activities conducted at one’s residence.” The existence of a radio antenna is not forbidden by the nuisance clause. The “approval by silence” clause granted permission. The court strictly construes language in favor of the unencumbered use of real property. Baysinger v. City of Northglenn (Supreme Court of Colo., 1978) - Opinion - DOC
- Brief of Baysinger - PDF
- Trial Transcript - PDF
Cite as 195 Colo. 99, 575 P.2d 425 (1978). Baysinger (then WBØBAE, now WGØN) sued (as a class-action) when Northglenn adopted an ordinance requiring special use permits for all antennas. Held: Ordinance invalid as an unreasonable exercise of the police power. Original materials courtesy of Atty. Marshall Quiat, AGØX. Brown v. Twp. of Hinckley (Court of Common Pleas, Medina County, Ohio, 1976) Reverses denial of variance for a 58' tower, in a town with a 35 foot height limitation. Follows reasoning in Wondrak v. Kelly, et al, 129 IS 268, and Dettmar v. County Board of Zoning Appeals, 28 Oh. Misc. 35. Orders issuance of a permit for the tower. Dettmar v. County Bd. of Zoning Appeals (Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio, 1971) Rejects Presnell v. Leslie, prefers Skinner v. Zoning Board and Wright v.Vogt. BZA upheld Building Inspector's decision to deny a permit to construct a 64' antenna. " ''(U)ses customarily incident to single family home dwellings' . . . does not limit the use to the identical use chosen by the neighbors." "(E)ven though it may be unusual," "it is permissible . . .unless it is specifically excluded." Appeal of Slemenda (County Court of Allegheny County, PA, 1966) - Findings of Fact and Order - PDF
Court finds that "In Order to effectively receive and transmit radio waves to communicate with other amateurs, it is necessary to utilize an antenna which must be elevated at least 40 to 50 feet above ground level." The Court rules that Slemenda may erect a 41-foot E-Z Way tower, despite a 30-foot maximum height, ordering the Borough "to issue the permit as applied for." Appeal of Schmigel (County Court of Allegheny County, PA, 1965) - Findings of Fact and Decision - PDF
After trial, Court finds "5. A physical height of 50' above ground is required for an amateur radio antenna in order to effectively communicate with other radio amateurs in the United States and throughout the world." The Zoning Board of Appeals is ordered to grant the permit as prayed for. Allows erection of 50-foot Vesto tower. Afflerbach et al v. McManus (Ct Common Pleas of Bucks Co PA, 1964) - Adjudication and Decree Nisi - PDF
Cite as: 36 Pa. D&C2d 495 (1964). A CC&R case won by the radio ham under principles of equity, allowing a 39-foot tower with five-foot mast. In re Putschi (County Board of Appeals, Baltimore Co., MD, 1964) Holds that while the Zoning Regulations of Baltimore County may prohibit a commercial antenna use, unless a special exception is obtained, a special excpetion is not required for an amateur radio use. Skinner v. Twp. of Cherry Hill (Superior Court, Appellate Division, 1963) Cite as 80 NJ Super 380 (App Div 1963). Relying on Wright v. Vogt, 7 NJ 1 (1951), holding that a radio amateur's 100-foot radio antenna structure used in “his hobby” is an accessory use customarily incidental to the enjoyment of a residential property, and does not violate the 35-foot maximum height allowed in a residential zone. Menlo Park v. Orr (Superior Court, San Mateo County CA, 1962) - Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - PDF
Orr (W6SAI), author of the HF Antenna Handbook, received Planning Commission approval and building permit. Erected 70' Trylon (a brand name) retractable antenna support structure and antenna on 12, 200 s.f. lot. Antenna system not a public nuisance, and not maintained for any commercial purpose. Ordinance cited to void permit is an invalid exercise of the police power, because it does not bear any reasonable relationship to public safety, health, moirals or general welfare. City estopped from ordering removal. Attorney: the late Ed Peck, K6AN. Halter v. Bd. of Comm'rs (3rd Cir. Ct. Md.,1954) With stirring words and a comment on "busy and persistent planners," affirms Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) ruling that "(t)he public safety, health, morals or welfare will in no wise be affected by the erection of the tower among the trees in Mr. Cheek's backyard." Village of St. Louis Park v. Casey (MN, 1944) Cite as 218 Minn. 394, 16 N.W.2d 459 (1944). Court holds amateur radio to be a use customarily incident to a residential establishment. This is a "two-lot" case. Court also finds that antennas on the adjacent lot, where that lot is used by the owner as a part of a single residential estate, are incidental to the residence. | 
