[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Happy news for a change

To: Alan NV8A <>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Happy news for a change
From: Richards <>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:19:56 -0400
List-post: <">>
I live in the very West end of Wyoming, Michigan, what they call
the "panhandle."  Looks like we are fairly close neighbors.   Did
you perhaps work the  MS 200 Mile bike ride event or the Spring
Lake race with the other Ottawa County hams?

But you ask a VERY GOOD question.   The Wyoming City ordinance

        (a)   Noncommercial facilities.  Equipment required to operate
        and maintain building and fire or parapet walls, skylights, towers,
        steeples, stage lofts and screens, flagpoles, chimneys,
        smokestacks,  individual domes, water tanks and other similar
        structures, may be erected above the height limits of the district.
        Except for commercial radio, television or transmitting or relay
        antenna towers, no such structure may be erected to exceed by
        more than 20 feet, the height limits of the district in which it is
        located nor shall such structure have a total area greater than
        25 percent of the roof area of the building, nor shall such structure
        be used for any other purpose other than as incidental to the main
        use of the building.

The Building Inspector interprets says the ANTENNA IS THE
"STRUCTURE."  So the top of the antenna (i.e., structure)  cannot reach
higher than 55 feet  (houses can be no higher than 35 feet.)

That means, for example, I can put up a Hy-Gain Hi-Tower which is 53
feet tall with no permit, no inspection, no fees, no hassle - other than
might come from hostile neighbors.   (Yes... I checked for deed
and association restrictions before buying the parcel.)

As for the Park Twp ordinance, and having some familiarity with the
Ottawa Co. Circuit Judges who would resolve any dispute over how
to properly construe that ordinance...   I would expect (just my opinion
and not a real legal opinion)  they would consider the mast part of the
"tower," and the antenna attached to the mast an "antenna" - which
I think comports with a common sense reading, and not a
Bill Clinton,-"how-do-you-define-sex"  sort of analysis lawyers are
likely to advance.   But, I think it is up for grabs either way  (absent
any Appellate Court precedence in such cases...)

It is, of course,  the old "slippery slope"  argument:   So.. is the top
section of tower part of the tower, or the antenna...?  After all, the 
and rotor plate are really part of the antenna system, not the support
tower, so the part that holds the rotor is really part of the antenna, ...
right?   So, I guess you can keep worming your way down the tower
by arguing each part is part of the antenna, and not the tower...  Hmmm...

In the case of the Hy-tower, the base of the tower is insulated, and
the entire structure radiates as the antenna, so I suppose it is all
antenna and zero tower, right?

Great fun until the Court rules against your desired interpretation...
and you are Ordered to make it shorter.

Happy trails.    =========   Richards - K8JHR  ===========


Alan NV8A wrote:

  > How is the ordinance worded? Park Township's (near Holland, MI -- but
> it's not the municipality in which I live) ordinance refers, I am told, 
> to the height of the "tower."   Thus some hams have argued that the mast 
> they have protruding from the top of the tower doesn't count. I don't 
> know whether that interpretation has ever been put to the test.

TowerTalk mailing list

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