[Top] [All Lists]

US Tower MA40 Plan Part II

To: <>
Subject: US Tower MA40 Plan Part II
From: (Stan Griffiths)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 12:51:49 -0700 (PDT)
>OK, so now I'm dealing with the city planning commission.  What a joke!  They 
>have no procedure to accommodate my needs.  I find this strange.  Concord, CA 
>where I live has a population of well over 100,000 and was incorporated into a 
>city back around the turn of the century.  This has never come up before?
>My contact at the city planning commission has been doing some research for my 
>project and reports that they have issued "land use" permits to commercial 
>users for antenna towers, but never for a private individual in a residential 
>I think I know why:  The closest permit she could find that would accommodate 
>my needs was a level "C".  This starts at $2,640.  Its the same fee, and 
>requires the same documentation and reports, as if I wanted to build an entire 

This is very similar to what we have to put up with in Washington County,
Oregon.  It is over $2000 and requires a "development permit" since there is
no other way to handle it in their rules and regs.

>It's frustrating because I wanted to do this the right way.  Part of the 
>process requires notifying all the neighbors within 300' of the planned 
>installation.  I'm thinking of taking matters into my own hands and dealing 
>with my neighbors directly.
>My current thinking is:  If I can educate and get the blessing of all my 
>neighbors, then there should be no need for city involvement.  On that note, I 
>sent a letter out to all my neighbors (14) yesterday that described what I 
>want to do.  I enclosed photocopies of the US Tower marketing material for the 
>tubular tower (Neighbor Friendly Design!) as well as a photocopy of a 
>traditional triangular Rohn type tower for comparison.

I would be AMAZED if you could get 14 neighbors to actually agree to let you
have a tower!

>I told the city planning commission that this whole thing is crazy.  I also 
>pointed out that there are dozens of amateur towers in the city.  It's a shame 
>that we have no process to do this legally.  I did say that one day a ham with 
>$10,000+ will challenge this whole thing and get it changed, but it won't be 

Unfortunately, it may be non-ham who hates towers with $10,000 who
challenges tho whole thing and gets it changed, much to your detriment.  You
may end up with a 30 foot height limit or maybe NO towers at all!

>I really feel that I've been forced to do it this way.  One problem I see is 
>that besides being illegal per-say, no official will be involved in checking 
>my engineering specs.  I guess most hams do things right for their own 
>investment, and I certainly will be included in that sentiment.

I don't think you were forced to seek the approval of your neighbors and if
one of them loudly disapproves, he could cause you a LOT of trouble by
rallying the other neighbors to his cause.  In cases like this, I believe
the best thing is to just put up your tower very quietly and maybe things
will remain quiet.

>What say Tower Talkers?  Should I even bother contacting the County government 
>to see if they have a process?  More important for my own peace of mind:  Will 
>I have to learn to live with the self imposed stigma of being a social 

Where I live in Oregon, the City regulations prevail over the County
regulations if you live in a city.  If you live in a cit and there are no
city regulations regarding towers, then there are no regulations.  I,
personally, live in an area of Washington County, Oregon that is
unincorporated so we have no city regulations but, in this case, the County
regulations prevail.  Two cities are trying to annex this area:  Beaverton
and Hillsboro.  If Beaverton get us, I will have a 35 foot height limit and
if Hillsboro gets us, I will have no limits at all.  Guess which one I am
pulling for . . .


FAQ on WWW:     
Administrative requests:
Sponsored by Akorn Access, Inc & KM9P

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>