Hans, you forgot to mention mind control by talking to them via the
electrical outlets. What a PITA you had to suffer over something really
so simple. Boy am I glad the FAA regs are my only impediment and I have
no plans for going 200 ft tall so no worries. My greatest single
concern is someone ignoring all the no trespassing signs, barbed wire
fences, signs at the tower bases warning of danger, prohibiting climbing
and so forth and getting hurt. Towers are called attractive nuisances
as are swimming pools.
The*attractive nuisance*doctrine applies to the law of torts, in the
United States. It states that a landowner may be held liable for
injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by
an object on the land that is likely to attract children.
Patrick NJ5G
On 2/7/2017 12:15 PM, Hans Hammarquist via TowerTalk wrote:
My town (in Vermont) has 40 feet as the local hight restriction and accept an other 12 feet
"sticking up" above present structure. The zoning board was not against me putting
up an 85 foot tower but required a hearing as I needed a variance. My problem was the neighbor
that didn't want "the horizon of nature be disturbed by technology. Due to an
administrative mess-up the hearing got delayed for a year. When I finally got my permit it was
autumn and I had to wait for the spring to get my tower up. I missed the peak of the solar
spot cycle. Well, more will come.
ARRL was able get me in touch with an attorney that help me for free. He was very helpful. There
are also several court cases available on line. The favorite is a case from Florida where the judge
ordered the town to pay for the ham's legal fee (~$18.000). I had that case with a few other in my
application to "soften up" the zoning board. It is always good to indicate that they may
up getting additional expenses if they decide to "fight". Most towns don't like extra
expenses.
A fun note: My neighbor tried to stop the permit by claiming I was going to use it "to eavesdrop on
telephone conversations" as my son had demonstrated for them how he was able to listen to a phone
conversation "from northern Vermont" which is about 130 miles from our house located on the
southern tip of Vermont. They also highlighted the possibility of "radioactive radiation" from the
tower. Don't you love these people?
Hans - N2JFS
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Sawyer <sawyered@earthlink.net>
To: towertalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Tue, Feb 7, 2017 1:31 am
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Advice on tower restrictions possible new install
K6OK stated -
"Wouldn't you want the opposite? If a county has a blanket height
restriction on all types of structures, and that height limit is
lower than my planned towers, then I would avoid that county
unless it had a ham tower exemption. If a county has cell phone
tower regulations (which are common), I would avoid that county
unless they exempt ham towers from those rules.
But if you can't change counties, having these restrictions is not
necessarily a deal-killer. You might have to apply for a use permit
or a variance, requiring more time, money and anguish.
Unfortunately there's no guarantee they will approve your application."
I am not a lawyer certainly. K1VR and the ARRL support services are a good
way to get proper advice. That
Being said, you never want to ask for a "variance" against a law that
doesn't apply to you. You want to state
That your request is not restricted by the current regulations. Its NOT a
commercial permit for a tower, its
A personal use auxiliary structure. So any clerk telling you otherwise
should not prevent you from doing what you
Want to do.
Its also a protected use under Federal Pre-emption - PRB-1. The fact that
the state or county/city/town has not
Enacted language in their law to accommodate the pre-emption, should not
dissuade you from exercising your federally granted rights.
I think the question is to decide what the response is after sizing up the
situation. Has the state enacted PRB1 language? If so, what does it say
about your plans and what are you up against. Do the local regulations
mention the case of personal antenna supports or not.
Certain local groups are up for a fight and certain ones don't want a legal
battle especially if no neighbor is complaining. Here in rural Vermont -
they were "thankful" for the guidance and glad to hear they weren't going to
be 200 ft tall.
Note that none of the above deals with HOAs which is a horse of a different
color.
Ed N1UR
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/13907 - Release Date: 02/07/17
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|