In the case of town of Cary(NC), it is a different story. I called the director
of
building permits and inspections and informed him that i will be installing a
crankup that nests
at 25ft with an antenna that will stay just above the roofline. If needed, it
can crankup to 50ft
and the tower will be bracketed to the house, i was told that no permit was
needed. I was
surprised. He said there was nothing in the building codes that needed a
permit for this setup.
I know i will need to get that in writing once the HOA clears my way. When i
asked what he/his
office will tell folks that will call and question about the tower/antenna, he
said we will say the
same thing - "no permit needed". I will be paying a visit to him and have an
eyeball soon.
Will also check on the tree mount at that point. I want to do it right with
absolutely no
compromise on safety.
My next issue would be the longevity of those rubber boots on the
steppir and their ability to hold the fibreglass poles over time. I know i can
wind some black
tape ontop, but will installing duct tape in parallel to the element and the
motor unit prior to
installing the boot help with some insurance?
Can the steppIr act as a rabbit ear to tune TV with a 50ohm to 75ohm matching
transformer.?
You know where i am headed with this query.
73's krish w4vku
Joe Giacobello wrote:
> You would think that any city that bills itself as The Garlic Capitol of
> the World would be much more tolerant of antennas!
>
> 73, Joe
> K2XX
>
> Kelly Johnson wrote:
> > Well, this ordinance is just like all the rest: you can do what you
> > want until somebody complains. I'm sure nobody will complain about a
> > dipole tied to a tree, but a SteppIR on top of a 70ft. tree in Gilroy
> > would almost certainly earn you a visit from Code Enforcement :-)
> >
> >
> > On 2/12/07, AA6DX - Mark <aa6dx@arrl.net> wrote:
> >
> >> No waaarrrsss in trees?
> >> Wow ... first I have heard of that one. Kinda makes you wonder, whatever
> >> happened that made the solons decide to enact that regulation? Musta been
> >> some kind of "trigger"? Or are others on the list encumbered with that
> >> ridiculosity? 73
> >> Mark Nelson - AA6DX
> >>
> >> mailto: AA6DX@ARRL.NET
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Kelly Johnson" <n6kj.kelly@gmail.com>
> >> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> >> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 1:53 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Which rotor for a tree setup - Ham 3, Ham 4 ,
> >> other
> >>
> >>
> >> Trees are unregulated? Don't be so sure.
> >>
> >> The zoning ordinance for Gilroy, Ca. specifically forbids attaching
> >> antennas to trees or utility poles!!!!
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> TowerTalk mailing list
> >> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TowerTalk mailing list
> > TowerTalk@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|