Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] TowerTalk Digest, Vol 76, Issue 78

To: towertalk@contesting.com, bbowers@mozarks.c
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] TowerTalk Digest, Vol 76, Issue 78
From: Lou Laderman <lladerman@earthlink.net>
Reply-to: Lou Laderman <lladerman@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:09:30 -0400 (EDT)
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
Blake, I emailed you privately to give me a call. 

I don't know if you have organized area hams yet, but that should be done to 
meet with and influence the zoning ordinance. A height limit of 35' absent a 
very costly conditional use process doesn't appear in keeping with the follwing 
MO law, which is the adopted incorporation of PRB-1:

Local ordinances regulating amateur radio antennas authorized, limitations, 
requirements--historic preservation considerations allowed. 

67.329. 1. No political subdivision shall enact or enforce any order or 
ordinance that does not comply with the limited preemption of the Federal 
Communications Commission Amateur Radio Preemption order, published at 101 
F.C.C. 2d 952 (1985), or any regulation related to amateur radio service 
adopted under 47 CFR Part 97. Any order or ordinance relating to the placement, 
screening, or height of an amateur radio antenna based on health, safety, or 
aesthetic considerations shall reasonably accommodate amateur communications 
and represent the minimal practicable regulation to accomplish the political 
subdivision's legitimate purpose. To the extent not preempted by federal law, 
nothing in this section shall prohibit a political subdivision from adopting an 
order or ordinance prohibiting amateur radio communications equipment from 
interfering with the reception of broadcast radio or television signals. 

2. The provisions of this section do not prohibit a political subdivision from 
taking action to protect or preserve a historic, a historical, or an 
architectural district that is established by the political subdivision or 
pursuant to state or federal law. 

Lou, W0FK

>Message: 8
>Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:01:53 -0500
>From: "Blake Bowers" <bbowers@mozarks.com>
>Subject: [TowerTalk] Franklin County tower ordinance
>To: <StLASE@yahoogroups.com>
>Cc: TOWERTALK@contesting.com
>Message-ID: <49CFC3B8188846E4A8B3A93BD365EA0E@toshibauser>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>       reply-type=original
>
>Franklin County MO has a zoning ordinance on the table right now.
>
>For HAM towers, it permits up to 35 feet - with Conditional Use
>Permits required in residental zoned areas.
>
>For OVER 35 feet, in RD and RD-2 areas, it simply does not
>allow the tower, in other areas it requires a CUP or admin permit.
>
>PRB-1 says the county has to make reasonable accomodations,
>is 35 feet reasonable?  Most areas have 70 feet or so.
>
>The proposed ordinance also has lots of set back requirements,
>fall zone requirements, and landscaping requirements.  I don't at
>first blush see any exemptions for HAMS on these requirements.
>
>In fact, I don't see any exemption from the loading requirements for
>HAMS.
>
>CUP is 500 bucks, admin permit 200.
>
>100.00 fee every two years for renewal.
>
>This is a bad ordinance.
>
>Add to the burden for commercial towers, they want to require
>us to provide free space for any public service group or agency.
>
>I suppose the gas stations in town are providing free gas for the 
>patrol cars....
>
>
>
>
>
>Don't take your organs to heaven, 
>heaven knows we need them down here!
>Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. 
>
>
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [TowerTalk] TowerTalk Digest, Vol 76, Issue 78, Lou Laderman <=