At 08:50 AM 4/21/02 -0700, Al Williams wrote:
> >....I'd be surprised if ANYWHERE there were an HOME OWNERS
> > ASSOCIATION document encouraging our hobby.
>
>Good Point.
>
>Not only that but I would be surprised if any State, County,
>City or Town includes encouraging our hobby in their regulations
>concerning antennas and towers. None even reference
>Public Law 103-408 which does just that.
Well, Jefferson County, West Virginia's Planning and Zoning Commission has
formally categorized amateur radio towers and antennas as Essential Utility
Equipment, thereby exempting them from regulation under the county's
ordinance covering celltower construction. Thereby, they are also exempt
from the county's height limitation and do not require a building permit
for construction.
>I am again involved in getting a modification to the Washington
>State's codification of PRB-1 which would provide some details
>concerning minimum tower/antenna height, setback, etc..
>
>At a club meeting, one ham objected to any change from the
>PRB-1 codification. His grounds were that any specific height
>would be a barrier for hams wanting to exceed that height.
>Moreover, a change wouldn't help because these lesser
>jurisdictions wouldn't automatically change their laws. This
>ham has for many years been an asset with his help to the
>ham community. I believe his position is sincere--i.e. he is
>not a just a naysayer.
>
>Please reply direct if you have information (not just emotional
>opinions) on whether a height inclusion in the state law
>(such as Alaska, Virginia, Oregon, and Wyoming) has been
>helpful or a hindrance. I will post a summary.
Opinion -- I hope not emotional: It seems to me that any statute that only
requires "reasonable accommodation", while a big step in the right
direction, leaves open a highly-interpretable term. If the specific
standards are set high enough, as I understand Virginia's to be, then
specificity seems preferable.
73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the World HF
Contest Station Database at
www.pvrc.org
|