Scotty Neustadter <scotty@iquest.com> writes:
> Is anyone out there using Rohn 65? The reason for asking is that we
> have a non-ham here in town who put up 190 ft. (Yes 190 ft) of this
> stuff on his large lot on the highest hill for miles around and is
> trying to get the city zoning board to believe that it is for ham
> use. His petition also asks for permission to use the tower for
> "other" purposes. [Surprise!]
> This character's actions have resulted in the city deciding that it
> HAD to enact an antenna ordinance. We are still working that one
> and will probably come out somewhere between 80 to 100 ft without
> variances.
> As part of our bit before the Board of Adjustment I would like to be
> able to say that only 0.?? % of Hams are using Rohn 65 for a
> tower. Strengthening our arguement that the true purpose is
> commercial. (For those of you who have never seen Rohn 65, go check
> out the local AM radio station tower, 20 ft sections, guyed 60 ft
> intervals.)
I can certainly sympathize with your problem, but I sure wouldn't want
to start setting precedents against using commercial-grade tower, or
making the use of such tower some kind of litmus test.
I just acquired a used Rohn SSV tower (admittedly only 90 feet). This
thing is certainly industrial strength (10 1/2 feet on a side at the
base) but it was actually less expensive than new Rohn 45 and is, of
course, self-supporting. That's an advantage in my location.
It would seem to me that the (probable) commercial use of the proposed
tower is the real issue here. That's the legitimate area for the
zoning board to look at before granting a variance if the property
isn't currently zoned commercial.
Just my humble opinion.
Rolfe
W3VH
--
Rolfe Tessem | Lucky Duck Productions
rolfe@ldp.com | 96 Morton Street
(212) 463-0029 | New York, NY 10014
|