[Top] [All Lists]

[Towertalk] Re: Last Ditch Effort Needed on Tower Bill - June 28, 2002

To: <>
Subject: [Towertalk] Re: Last Ditch Effort Needed on Tower Bill - June 28, 2002
From: (Michael Gilmer, N2MG)
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 16:01:26 -0400
> > I live in NY (upstate, semi-rural) and although I had no
> > problem getting two (140-foot and 120-foot) towers
> > approved by my town,  I dutifully wrote and called
> > several NY state representatives last year and again
> > earlier this year.
> >(which resulted in squat,  zip, nada)
> I live out west--please interpret !

Squat, zip, nada == NOTHING

After all the efforts last year, the dang NY legislature never even brought
it up for a vote.

> >  But...I have to wonder about these
> > bills that stipulate a specific height.  Maybe some feel there *needs*
> be
> > one to make the bill workable, but I think it's a bad precedent to set:
> > essentially declaring 95 feet as some kind of magic height - one at
> > hams should be happy and shut up.
> When I inquired at about 25 towns for what their tower height restrictions
> were, by far the most was 35 feet.  It appears to be true that a precedent
> was set (actually, planners just copied what others before them have
> done), I don't agree at all that 95 feet  is "essentially declaring 95
> as some kind of magic height ...."

I don't follow seems exactly like 95 feet would then become the
defacto standard.

> > I know, I know, there are plenty of hams who would kill for a 95-foot
> tower,
> > but anyone looking for a 100 foot tower is potentially going to have to
> work
> > harder to justify it, if this passes.
> but not as hard as if the 35-foot tower regulation is in place?

You miss the point. Simply stating that a reasonable accommodation be made
is enough.  Adding a height narrows the benefit.

If my town had applied this new law to my permit application, then very
possibly I would have had to jump through more hoops.  "Mr. Gilmer, the code
we have in this town is based on the much-heralded NYS law passed in 2002
which essentially stipulated that 95 feet is a reaonable height.  This
height was determined by NYS and leading amateur radio operators. Are you
going to tell me that you need MORE? 50 PERCENT MORE? What ever for?  If 95
feet is not enough, then why would it have been mentioned in the law?"

I got no such grilling because I did not have to compare my proposed height
against an arbitrary height.

Certainly, the bill does NOT demand that towns summarily approve all
proposed towers up to 95 feet.  The town only need apply reasonable
accommodation. "Reasonable accommodation" means the town cannot summarily
disallow ALL towers above some height (as many do now @35feet).  A height
specification in the bill is extraneous and distracting.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [Towertalk] Re: Last Ditch Effort Needed on Tower Bill - June 28, 2002, Michael Gilmer, N2MG <=