Matt, thanks very much on the height correction. It is still unlikely I
will reach or exceed 150'.
I turned down a free tower last year. It was an abandoned cell site
with 160 ft tower. Too difficult to take down, transport and re-errect.
Maybe 20 years ago I would have given it a whorl.
Patrick Nj5G
On 2/7/2017 1:21 PM, Matt wrote:
New regs are 150' before lighting is necessary by the way.
70/7460-1L replaced 70/7460-1K
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Patrick Greenlee
<patrick_g@windstream.net <mailto:patrick_g@windstream.net>> wrote:
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
<mailto:sawyered@earthlink.net>>
To: towertalk <towertalk@contesting.com
<mailto: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 <mailto:TowerTalk@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com <mailto:TowerTalk@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/13907 - Release
Date: 02/07/17
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com <mailto:TowerTalk@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk>
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature>
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
|