Hello All,
This situation will be happening in many communities as they attempt to
curtain
the growth of cell sites. In Huntington Township on Long Island a similar
proposal
to rewrite the ordinances concerning towers was headed off by local
amateurs. The
Township board elected to postpone their ordinance revision to rewrite the
language to
exclude licensed amateur radio operators. This board publicly stated, it was
not their
intention to include the amateur's, as the amateurs provide valuable
services to the
community.
Please stay informed as to what your local government is proposing
concerning their
attempts to block the growth of cell sites. Contact your officials and make
them aware
of amateur radio. I am sure they will amend their proposal to accommodate
the
you..
73
Tom Carrubba KA2D
ARRL NLI ASM/Western Suffolk County
-----Original Message-----
From: KQ3V@aol.com <KQ3V@aol.com>
To: towertalk@contesting.com <towertalk@contesting.com>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Thursday, June 04, 1998 14:07
Subject: [TowerTalk] no ham antenna restrictions ordinance
>Recently, there was a notice in my local paper that my municipality was
going
>to enact an ordinance restricting towers and antennas. I called one of the
>three supervisors to see what the ordinance was about and was informed that
>"oh, we don't want to regulate your towers, we want to control commercial
>towers." I told him that I had seen instances in the past where intent and
>what is written do not always agree. I got a copy of the proposed
ordinance
>and found that it, if enacted, would restrict all antennas and towers from
>being erected in all but commercial districts, due to the way the
definitions
>were written. This in a township where the current (at the time)ordinance
>specifically excluded communications towers from height as well as
location
>restrictions.
>As luck would have it, there was a hearing on a cell carrier's request to
>erect a tower in a commercial district prior to ordinance enactment. I
>attended to (1) get a "feel" for the supervisors' opinions and (2) see if
>there were any public objections. I got in a conversation with a second
>supervisor after the meeting and told him of my concerns; he told me about
a
>workshop to be held the next night and suggested I attend. I did and
>expressed my concerns to all three at that meeting. I knew one of the
>supervisors had both a cb antenna and a satellite dish and that, while I
>empathised with them re cell towers, did they really want to restrict these
>other antennas?. As it turned out, a second supervisor also has a dish. I
>also played-up the fact that we are in a rural area and no one objected to
the
>cell tower at the hearing. They all agreed that they did not want over-
>regulation-what did I propose? I proposed that they add a line to the
>ordinance that "specifically excluded from this ordinance are amateur radio
>antennas, citizens' band antennas, television receiving antennas, and their
>supporting structures." The chairman told the secretary to copy this
language
>in the meeting minutes.
>The night of the vote on the enactment of the ordinance, I arrived about 5
>minutes before the call to order; when I walked in I heard the solicitor
say "
>I know we didn't want to regulate them" ( he was not present at the
workshop)
>I felt good.
>The meeting was called to order, the proposed ordinance was read, public
>comment was asked for- I was the only non-official to attend the hearing -I
>reiterated my points for the record, quoting PRB-1 as necessary. After I
>spoke, the solicitor asked the zoning officer what he had been doing if
>someone asked for a building permit for a tower; his reply "I tell them to
put
>them up-no permit is required." After that, the solicitor asked me to
repeat
>my proposed language; I handed him a typed copy I had prepared, he copied
it
>to the ordinance, passed the copy to the supervisors for review, and it
passed
>3-0.
>Things that I believe helped:
>I reviewed all my moves with an ARRL volunteer counsel, but we jointly
decided
>to keep him in the background to keep things on a "neighborly " basis.
>I had previously served on a board in the township, so all 3 supervisors
knew
>me.
>I brought in the cb and tv antenna issue because I am the only ham in my
>township, and I knew of the one supervisor's dish and cb antenna.
>There were no objections to the cell tower at its public hearing-I attended
>that hearing to see what, if any, citizen objections would be raised so I
>would be prepared to counter them.
>I attended the workshop and we discussed the issues "off the record" as
>friends.
>I got the PRB-1 packet from the League and excerpted it as necessary,
>highlighting the minimal regulation aspects.
>I read the proposed ordinance and its definitions, instead of relying on
>verbal comments re intent. If I hadn't, when this board is gone, a whole
>different interpretation/enforcement issue may have arisen.
>I had a copy of the proposed language (which had been reviewed by N3FMC,
the
>v.c.) typed and ready to be handed-over to the board and their solicitor.
>I live in an area where people believe in "live and let live"; at the
workshop
>meeting, the chairman of the board commented " why do we always try to
>regulate something and end up over-regulating it?"
>A long post, I know; hope it helps someone.
>73,
>Bob
>KQ3V
>
>
>
>--
>FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
>Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
>Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
>Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
>Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
>
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|