Source: https://www.qsl.net/k3qk/bodony.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 20:27:11+00:00

Document:
LAST SEPTEMBER, ANDREW BODONY, K2LE, WON A PORTION OF HIS SUIT IN US DISTRICT COURT AGAINST THE CITY OF SANDS POINT, NEW YORK, THAT VOIDED THAT CITY'S 25 FOOT HEIGHT ORDINANCE WHICH INCLUDED ANTENNA TOWERS. THE REMAINDER OF HIS SUIT WAS AGAINST THE CITY FOR MONETARY DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. RECENTLY, THE CITY SETTLED OUT OF COURT WITH BODONY, PAYING HIM THE MAJORITY OF HIS ATTORNEY'S FEES, WHICH TOTALED OVER SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS.
A Federal judge has relied on PRB-1 to void a local height limitation as applied to an Amateur Radio antenna. Andrew B. Bodony, K2LE, had brought suit in U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to overturn denial by the Village of Sands Point of his application for a building permit for an 86-foot tower, retractable to 23 feet in height. In granting partial summary judgement in Bodony's favor, District Judge Jacob Mishler found PRB-1 to be a proper exercise of FCC authority and found that the Village was precluded from applying its 25 foot height limitation on accessory buildings to Bodony's proposed antenna. This court test of PRB-1 represents the first time a local zoning ordinance as applied to an Amateur Radio antenna has been declared invalid on the basis of PRB-1.
Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, Esqs.
Sheft, Wright & Sweeney, Esqs.
Andrew B. Bodony is an amateur radio operator, licensed by the F.C.C. as an Amateur Extra Class licensee. On October 5, 1984, the F.C.C. granted Bodony an amateur radio station license for Bodony's residence at Cornwells Beach Road, Sands Point, Nassau County, New York. Soon thereafter Bodony began preparation for the erection of a free standing structure for an antenna system, 23 feet in height in its retracted position and 86 feet in height in its extended position. Bodony excavated an area of about 4 1/2 feet square to a depth of about 12 feet and poured concrete into the excavation to serve as an anchor for the antenna. The site of the antenna is a wooded area and it is expected that trees will shield the antenna from public view when it is extended to its maximum height.
The Incorporated Village of Sands Point ("Village") issued a summons charging Bodony with a violation of a village ordinance requiring a building permit for the structure. Bodony applied for a building permit. The Village denied the permit. Leonard Wurzel, building inspector of the Village, is joined as a party defendant.
Count II-The height restriction is unconstitutional in that it constitutes a burden on radio communication and interstate commerce in violation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution (power to regulate interstate commerce).
Count III-A violation of First Amendment rights of free speech, assembly, and association.
Count V-A violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments in that it subjects the plaintiff to possible criminal liability and the ordinance is vague and overbroad and fails to inform, guide, instruct or direct the Zoning Board in consideration of plaintiff's application. As applied, the ordinance has a chilling effect on plaintiff's constitutional rights.
Count VI-The height restriction does not bear a reasonable relationship to the state's police power and therefore is unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory, oppressive and confiscatory and constitutes an unwarranted interference with substantial property rights.
PRB-1 states under the caption "Summary"
if the height of their antennas is limited by a local ordinance.
Further, under the caption, "Discussion"
may be made between the two sides.
to provide the amateur operator with the communications that he/she desires to engage in.
to accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose.
Congress created the F.C.C. in the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. & 151 et seq.
and granted the F.C.C. the power to promulgate regulations "as may be necessary in the execution of its functions...." 47 U.S.C. & 154(c). The F.C.C. was given "broad responsibilities" to regulate all aspects of interstate and foreign radio under &2(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. & 152(a). Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691, 700, 104 S. Ct. 2694, 2700-01 (1984); see also United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 177-78, 88 S. Ct. 1994, 2005 (1968). The regulations have the same preemptive effect as federal statutes. United States v. Shimer, 367 U.S. 374, 383, 81 S. Ct. 1554, 1560 (1961). The F.C.C. decided on a "limited preemption" which requires the Village to vary the ordinance limiting the height of Bodony's antenna so that he may use the license granted him by the F.C.C. for international communications, and exercise its right to protect the health, safety and general welfare and preserve property values and the general character of the neighborhood by using the least restrictive height to accomplish its "legitimate purpose."
the height restriction of Section 352.2. (3(g) Statement).
essential character of the neighborhood.
One factor in determining the range and effectiveness of radio communication is the height of the antenna. Measurement from the ground tells us little. A 25 foot antenna in a valley surrounded by hills might be useless, while that equipment on a mountain top might give optimum results. An antenna rising above the obstacles that interfere with radio signals obviously gives a greater range and better reception than an antenna of a lesser height.
The fact that Section 352.2 does not prohibit amateur communications is not the answer to a claim of preemption. An absolute limitation of height affects Bodony's right to the full use of his amateur extra class license and the license to use his property as an amateur radio station issued by the F.C.C.. The Zoning Board did not consider a height above 25 feet that would at the same time "accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose". The F.C.C., in asserting a limited preemption, placed upon the Zoning Board the duty of striking "a balance between the federal interest in promoting amateur operations and the legitimate interests of local governments in regulating local zoning matters." The recital by the defendants of the findings of the Zoning Board in arguing its opposition to Bodony's motion does not preclude litigation of the validity of Section 352.2 as it affects Bodony. See University of Tennessee v. Elliot, 478 U.S.___, 106 S. Ct. 3220, 3225 (1986).
The record fails to show that the erection of the proposed antenna will endanger the health, safety and general welfare of the residents or be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood or to the residents. The Zoning Board did not determine the height above which the antenna would endanger the health, safety and general welfare of the residents. It is uncertain how the erection of the proposed antenna system will affect the outward appearance or aesthetic harmony of the neighborhood, given the proposed shielding of the system by trees. The action of the Zoning Board is devoid of any effort to make "a reasonable accommodation...between the two sides."
Bodony opposes defendants' motion for summary judgement on the ground that he has not had the opportunity to discover materials in the exclusive possession of the defendants that would probably result in evidence showing the existence of material issues of fact. Schering v. Home Ins. Co., 712 F. 2d 4, 10 (2d Cir. 1983), Fed. R. Civ. Pg. 56 (f). We believe that Bodony has offered evidence that presents material issues of fact, and there is no reason to delay decision on the motion.
We turn to defendants' argument that the Zoning Board's decision may not be overturned unless the action is arbitrary and capricious. (Point IV, Defendants' memo).
Count VII alleges a civil rights claim in charging the Zoning Board with (1) having denied Bodony's application before the hearing commenced, and (2) seeking advice and counsel from third parties...as to the best manner in which to deny plaintiff's application..." in violation of his right to due process. The court having directed production of document No. 7 in a memorandum of decision dated this day, and defendants having consented to the production of documents numbered 5 and 8, finds fact issues presented on this claim. The court of course does not find that the claim is established.
If Bodony succeeds on this claim, the decision of the Zoning Board must be vacated. We are not bound by the findings of the Zoning Board in such event. See Acorn Ponds v. Incorporated Village of North Hills, 623 F. Supp. 688, 693 (E.D.N.Y. 1985). (The & 1983 claim goes beyond a claim of error in the application of the zoning laws and charges members of the Zoning Board with an abuse of power that violated plaintiff's right to due process). The issues presented in the claim were not before the Zoning Board.
Enough has been offered in the record of the hearings to establish material fact issues for trial. Summary judgement is denied.
The motion of plaintiff Andrew B. Bodony for partial summary judgement is granted to the extent of declaring the 25 foot height limitation contained in section 352, para. 1 on the antenna system (an "accessory building") proposed by Bodony as void as it affects Bodony as an amateur extra class licensee for the licensed premises. Summary judgement on the issue of liability on Count I of the complaint is granted. See Lytle v. Freedom International Carriers, 519 F. 2d 129, 133 (6th Cir. 1975); Leasing Service Corp. v. Graham, 646 F. Supp. 1410, 1414 (S.D.N.Y. 1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (a); Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure 2s section 2737 at 446-53.
FOOTNOTES 1/ Plaintiff seeks to impose liability upon the members of the Zoning Board individually and as members of the Zoning Board.
2/ Testimony of experts indicates that a height of 60 to 70 feet is necessary for good reception under ideal atmospheric conditions. One Carl Silar, an amateur radio operator, stated that he received communications worldwide using an antenna which was less than 25 feet. He conceded 50 feet, 60 feet or 70 feet would achieve a better result. The F.C.C. permits operators of Citizen Band (CB) radio transmitters to use an antenna 60 feet in height holding "the primary purpose of permitting such an increase in height is to enable licensees to erect antennas above nearby obstacles which may absorb radiated energy and thus decrease ability to communicate." 42 F.C.C. 2d 511, 513 (1973). In Oelkers v. City of Placentia, No. CV 78-1301-RMT (C.D. Cal. 1979) (unreported decision) holding a 15 foot limitation on the height of an antenna unconstitutional as it affected the plaintiff amateur radio operator and found that the plaintiff was deprived "of some radio frequencies" at an increased height of 50 feet (as ordered by the court).
3/ We find it unnecessary to discuss the other grounds for the relief requested, i.e., Count IV (equal protection of law), and Count VI (section 353.2 unconstitutionally vague).
Plaintiff Andrew B. Bodony object to the Order of Magistrate David F. Jordan dated July 6, 1987 to the extent that it denies discovery of documents 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 23 on a list described as "Privilege List" pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (a).
Defendants claim error in the finding of waiver based on their failure to respond to plaintiff's request for production of documents under Rule 34 and further object to the production of numbers 10 and 11 on the ground of privilege.
We have examined the Privilege List in camera.
We agree with defendants that the Magistrate was in error in directing production of documents numbered 10 and 11. Document 10 seeks legal advice of counsel and document 11 gives legal advice.
We have reviewed the circumstances under which the defendants failed to comply with Standing Discovery Order No. 21 of this court (requiring assertion of privilege) and failing to move timely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (c). The defendants' attorney's conduct was not in bad faith or for the purpose of delay. We find that the magistrate's finding of waiver based on the violations of the rule and order to be error. The expense of the motion to compel production may nevertheless be recovered. ORDER Defendants are directed to produce documents No. 5 and No. 8 (by consent of defendants) and document No. 7. Documents numbered 10 and 11 are privileged and need not be produced.
FOOTNOTE 1/ Defendants consented to the production of document No. 8. Document No. 8 is a response to the request by Ms. Weinstein in document No. 7.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.