70 F.3d 1262 (4th Cir. 1995), 94-2577, Neufeld v. City of Baltimore

Docket Nº:94-2577.
Citation:70 F.3d 1262
Party Name:Leon NEUFELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF BALTIMORE; Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City; Board of Municipal and Zoning Appeals of Baltimore City; Robert E. Smith, as Director of the Office of Communications and Cable of the City of Baltimore; all of the above in their official capacities and their successors in title, Defendants-Appellees
Case Date:December 05, 1995
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1262

70 F.3d 1262 (4th Cir. 1995)

Leon NEUFELD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CITY OF BALTIMORE; Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City; Board of Municipal and Zoning Appeals of Baltimore City; Robert E. Smith, as Director of the Office of Communications and Cable of the City of Baltimore; all of the above in their official capacities and their successors in title, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 94-2577.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

December 5, 1995

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA4 Rule 36 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Argued Oct. 30, 1995

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert F. Murray, Senior District Judge. (CA-87-1383-HM)

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

ARGUED: William Edward Seekford, Towson, Maryland, for Appellant. Michael George Raimondi, Assistant City Solicitor, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

Leon Neufeld appeals decisions of the district court granting summary judgment against him in this action challenging the constitutionality of Baltimore city ordinances regulating the placement of a satellite dish on his residential property. We conclude that Baltimore, Md., City Code art. 30,§§ 4.0-2(b)(1), 4.1-2(b)(1) (1983), providing for a 30-foot setback line in the front yard of single-family detached dwellings zoned R-1, does not impermissibly infringe upon Neufeld's First Amendment rights. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

I.

On March 31, 1984, Neufeld installed a ten-foot wide satellite dish within 30 feet of the road in the front yard of his Baltimore, Maryland home. Soon afterward, Baltimore zoning officials notified him that the satellite dish as installed violated city zoning ordinances requiring approval for freestanding satellite dishes, see Baltimore, Md., City Code art. 30, §§ 4.1-1(c)(1), 11.0-3(c) (1983), and providing for a 30-foot front yard setback line, see id. §§ 4.0-2(b)(1), 4.1-2(b)(1). Neufeld unsuccessfully appealed the notice of violation. He also sought a conditional-use permit and a special exception that would have allowed him to maintain the dish in his front yard. Despite the refusal of city zoning officials to grant him a permit or special exception and the subsequent denials of his appeals from these decisions, Neufeld refused to remove the satellite dish. Thereafter, Neufeld was convicted on 11 occasions for violations of the zoning ordinances relating to satellite dishes and fined a total of $1,100. Threatened with continuing prosecution, Neufeld eventually dismantled the satellite dish in September 1986.

...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP