Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02223/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02223-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

• FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

Uciced Stat~ C@u,c of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

MAR 121990 

D.R. EVANS; J. EVANS; TIMOTHY R. ) 

HOLZHEIMER; GLORIA HOLZHEIMER, ) 

) 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; BOULDER ) 

COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT; ) 

ROBERT HELMICK, County Planner & Zoning) 

Administrator; GARY GOODELL, County ) 

Chief Bldg. Official, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 88-2223 

(D.C. No. 87-Z-1595) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and GREENE,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable J. Thomas Greene, District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Utah, sitting by designation. 

In 1987, the plaintiffs Holzheimers and Evanses separately 

applied to the Boulder County Land Use Department for permits to 

construct 125 feet ground mounted amateur radio antennas on their 

* This order and. judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes .of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-2223 Document: 01019966097 Date Filed: 03/12/1990 Page: 1 
approximately one acre residential lots. Both applications were 

denied on the ground that the Boulder County Zoning Resolution 

limits such antennas to thirty-five feet. Together, plaintiffs 

appealed to the Boulder County Board of Adjustment, which upheld 

the denial of the applications after holding a public hearing. 

Subsequently, plaintiffs commenced this action in the 

district court alleging that the denial of the applications and 

the Zoning Resolution conflicted with and was preempted by In re 

Federal Preemption of State & Local Regulations Pertaining to 

Amateur Radio Facilities, 101 F.C.C.2d 952, 50 Fed. Reg. 38813 

(1985) (PRB-1). The district court held the case in abeyance and 

directed plaintiffs to apply to the Boulder County Board of 

Adjustment for a zoning variance. The Board of Adjustment, after 

receiving evidence and hearing testimony, denied a variance. The 

variance was denied on the grounds that safety, aesthetic, and 

property value concerns involved with building the antennas were 

inconsistent with public health and welfare. Also, the Board 

found that plaintiffs had not demonstrated necessary hardship, as 

any hardship was due to their own choice of property on which to 

build the antennas. 

After holding a hearing and reviewing the administrative 

record and district court file, the district court then dismissed 

plaintiffs' action. Although recognizing that 125 feet antennas 

are necessary for plaintiffs' purposes and PRB-1 sets forth a 

limited preemption! the district court determined that local 

concerns of health, safety, and aesthetics were also important. 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-2223 Document: 01019966097 Date Filed: 03/12/1990 Page: 2 
In balancing the interests, the district court concluded the 

denial of a variance was not unreasonable. 

On appeal, plaintiffs first argue the district court erred in 

failing to find that amateur radio antennas are exempt from height 

limitations. Although the Zoning Resolution states that antennas 

are exempt from the thirty-five feet height restriction, the 

Boulder County Board of Adjustment interpreted this height 

exemption to apply to antennas attached to buildings. Plaintiffs 

take issue with this interpretation. Defendants argue this issue 

was not properly preserved for review on appeal, because the issue 

was neither briefed nor argued in the district court and thus the 

district 

defendants 

court 

argue 

did not rule on the issue. 

the exclusive remedy for 

Additionally, 

a disputed 

interpretation lies with an appeal in state court, see Colo. R. 

Civ. P. 106(a)(4), no federal issues are presented in the 

interpretation of the Zoning Resolution and the Board of 

Adjustment's interpretation was appropriate as the height exempt 

structures listed in the Zoning Resolution were accessories to 

residential uses. 

We conclude this issue was properly preserved for appeal and 

plaintiffs are not directly appealing the Board of Adjustment's 

interpretation of the Zoning Resolution. Because this state claim 

and the federal claims "derive from a common nucleus of operative 

fact," United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 

(1966), _ we do haye pendent jurisdiction over this claim. Id. 

Upon consideration of the Zoning Resolution, we conclude the Board 

of Adjustment's interpretation was reasonable. 

3 

Thus, we give 

Appellate Case: 88-2223 Document: 01019966097 Date Filed: 03/12/1990 Page: 3 
deference to the Board of Adjustment in interpreting its own 

regulations. Cf. Denver Police Protective Ass'n v. City & County 

of Denver, 710 P.2d 3, 5 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985)(reviewing court may 

not substitute its judgment for that of board or disturb an 

exercise of board discretion in zoning matters unless board 

clearly abused its discretion). Accordingly, because the Board of 

Adjustment's interpretation was reasonable, we now consider the 

federal issues, with which we are most concerned. 

Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred by failing to 

find the Board of Adjustment acted arbitrarily according to PRB-1 

in limiting plaintiffs' antennas to thirty-five feet. Plaintiffs 

maintain they are precluded from 

communications goals, because 

accomplishing 

there was no 

legitimate 

reasonable 

accommodation of amateur communication with a minimum amount of 

regulation. Also, plaintiffs contend that we need not reach this 

issue if we conclude the Zoning Resolution is invalid on its face. 

We disagree with plaintiffs' arguments. 

PRB-1 recognized both the local government interests in 

protecting the health, safety, and welfare of its residents and 

the federal interest in promoting amateur radio communications. 

PRB-1 at fl 22-24. Thus, 

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 at fl 25. kowever, "[s]tate and local regulations that 

operate to preclude ·amateur communications in their communities 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-2223 Document: 01019966097 Date Filed: 03/12/1990 Page: 4 
are in direct conflict with federal objectives and must be 

preempted." PRB-1 at~ 24. 

The Board of Adjustment, and the district court, conducted 

the balancing of amateur radio communication interests with local 

interests as is required by PRB-1. Therefore, the Board of 

Adjustment did reasonably accommodate amateur communications. 

After reviewing the administrative record and district court 

file, the district court made findings of fact in accordance with 

those of the Board of Adjustment, regarding safety, aesthetic, and 

property value concerns, which are considerations PRB-1 leaves to 

local zoning authorities. We conclude these findings of fact are 

fully supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous. See 

Eveiaard v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 842 F.2d 1186, 1191 

(10th Cir. 1988)(finding of fact is clearly erroneous when 

appellate court, after reviewing evidence, has definite and firm 

conviction a mistake has been c c . .. ui t ted). Because amateur radio 

communication interests were taken into consideration and 

plaintiffs refused to accept anything less than 125 feet antennas, 

there was a reasonable balancing of plaintiffs' needs with local 

concerns. 

Therefore, as applied, the requirements of PRB-1 were met. 

While the Zoning Resolution on its face may raise significant 

questions, we conclude, in light of plaintiffs' lack of 

entitlement to 125 feet amateur radio antennas, we need not reach 

plaintiffs' argumen~s regarding the facial validity of the Zoning 

Resolution. 

5 

Appellate Case: 88-2223 Document: 01019966097 Date Filed: 03/12/1990 Page: 5 
V • f • 

Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court 

for the District of Colorado is VACATED as to the determination 

the Zoning Resolution is facially valid, on the ground this issue 

need not have been reached, and AFFIRMED as to the result reached. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

6 

Appellate Case: 88-2223 Document: 01019966097 Date Filed: 03/12/1990 Page: 6