concurring.
I concur in both the result and in the Court’s opinion. In one respect, however, I would go further than the Court’s opinion. The Court reserves the question of whether the Baltimore City Zoning Code, which treats conventional and receive-only satellite antennas differently, is preempted by the FCC regulation governing satellite receive-only antennas. 47 C.F.R. § 25.104 (1986). The Court finds it unnecessary to address the question because it holds that the Montgomery Urban Renewal Plan Ordinance does not discriminate in its treatment of conventional and satellite receive-only antennas and is determinative of the case. Nevertheless, because the resolution of the Zoning Code issue seems clear, and because future guidance is appropriate, I would expressly hold that the Baltimore City Zoning Code relating to the use of satellite receive-only antennas is preempted by the FCC regulation. See Van Meter v. Township of Maplewood, 696 F.Supp. 1024, 1029-1032 (D.N.J. 1988); Alsar Technology v. Zon. Bd. of Adj., 235 N.J.Super. 471, 477-483, 563 A.2d 83, 86-89 (1989); Hunter v. City of *335Whittier, 209 Cal.App.3d 588, 595-599, 257 Cal.Rptr. 559, 563-566 (1989); See also Minars v. Rose, 123 A.D.2d 766, 507 N.Y.S.2d 241, 242 (1986); Brophy v. Town of Castine, 534 A.2d 663 (Me.1987).
Furthermore, I concur with the Court’s holding with respect to the Montgomery Urban Renewal Ordinance because the Ordinance is neutral on its face and appears to be neutral as applied. The Urban Renewal Ordinance prohibits the use of any type of antenna that is “visible from any front or side elevation or visible from any point of the street____”
A prohibition may appear to be neutral on its face but, because of other circumstances or characteristics, may operate in a discriminatory manner. For example, in light of the technology regarding satellite dishes and conventional antennas, and the different types of rooftops which exist, one might envision an area where functional receive-only satellite antennas on roofs were by their nature visible from the street whereas functional conventional outdoor antennas would not be. In this situation, although an ordinance like the Montgomery Urban Renewal Ordinance would appear to be neutral, only the use of conventional antennas would be permitted because satellite antennas would never conform to the requirements of the Urban Renewal Plan. An ordinance operating in this manner would be preempted by the FCC regulation. See Van Meter v. Township of Maplewood, supra, 696 F.Supp. at 1032; Hunter v. City of Whittier, supra, 209 Cal.App.3d at 593, 257 Cal.Rptr. at 562. In the present case, however, absolutely no evidence was presented before the Board of Zoning Appeals which might suggest such discrimination. On the contrary, the testimony at the administrative hearing indicated that conventional outdoor antennas were visible from the street and were deemed in violation of the Urban Renewal Ordinance unless erected prior to the effective date of the provision.
In addition, a neutral ordinance may be discriminatorily applied by those administering it. At the administrative hearing in the case at bar, counsel for Mr. Olsen elicited *336testimony from two witnesses that conventional antennas, visible from the street, are currently in use in the Montgomery Urban Renewal area. Both witnesses, however, indicated that these antennas were erected prior to the effective date of the Montgomery Urban Renewal Ordinance. No evidence was presented suggesting that the installation of conventional rooftop antennas has been permitted since the passage of the Urban Renewal Ordinance. If in a subsequent case it were found that the use of visible conventional antennas has been permitted after the passage of that Ordinance, then the Montgomery Urban Renewal Ordinance would be preempted by the FCC regulation as an unreasonable limitation on the reception of satellite delivered signals. See Brophy v. Town of Castine, supra, 534 A.2d at 664-665.