At 10:40 AM 9/13/2006, Jim Jarvis wrote:
>From: Jim Lux [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 1:02 PM
>To: Jim Jarvis; email@example.com
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] 90mph windloading
>Jim's thoughts are interesting...responding...
>The tendency to want to limit the profusion of Cell towers, and
>micro-cells, should they evolve, is clearly on the radar screen
>of the National Association of Municipalities. And it MAY be that
>the 90mph wind rating is an honest effort at reacting to issues of
>municipal liability, if something falls and causes injury. "Hey,
>we went above the UBC requirement, don't blame us!"
Indeed.. Around here, too, there's been a bunch of stuff about "pole
attached hardware". Since everybody and his brother wants to hook
some box onto the existing telephone, power, and light poles, and
understandbly, the folks who originally installed the poles aren't
happy about it. Partly for sound engineering reasons (we never
designed it for that!) and partly for revenue reasons (we *have* to
rent you space on our poles, even though it's competing (e.g. cable
TV on a telephone company installed pole) because of the law, but we
don't have to make it easy).
The last thing a municpality wants is to force the power company to
let Joe's Wireless Company stick a microcell box on the pole, and
then have it come off in the Santa Ana winds. 3 or more parties
involved, all of whom have moderately large legal budgets, some
funded by ratepayers.
>In applying for my variance for a 100' tower, in Essex Junction, VT,
>I worked with professional staff on proposed ordinance wording,
>on the topic of towers. This gave them the ability to say they
>had been advised by the amateur community, on 'reasonable accomodation',
>were they ever challenged. It gave us the opportunity to draft workable
>language, and it gave me their support at the zoning board.
>There, hams may have a tower without variance, up to 70', subject to
>70mph safety/50% setback requirements. The constraint is, they may
>not have commercial services on their towers, and if they move, sell,
>or no longer are licensed amateurs, must take the towers down.
>All perfectly reasonable, it seems to me.
This sounds pretty good. It keeps out the "sneak the commercial gear
in on the more easily permitted amateur tower" scheme. Of course, I
suspect that some of the WISP folks wouldn't be too happy.
>However, their draft language for celltowers required co-location of
>competing firms, use of silos, barns and similar structures as locations,
>rather than towers, and camoflaged antennas wherever possible.
>It IS Vermont, after all, where they outlaw billboards.
Same in Thousand Oaks, CA. No billboards. We have "viewshed
protection" ordinances, as well as regulations on the color you can
paint your house or business.
TowerTalk mailing list