Steve Jones wrote:
> I agree. The key is to obtain the original code/ordinance language and
> understand it. I found most of the counter staff at the County were not
> all familiar with the parts of their own code that applied to my tower,
> since they hadn't seen such an application in many years. Once I quoted
> them chapter and verse from their own ordinance, major complications such
> a Use Permit and CEQA Environmental Study went away.
In Cupertino, you are only allowed one "tower" but there is
no limit on "masts". The ordinance defines a "tower" as a
lattice tower. I applied for one "tower" (Rohn 25) and one
"mast" (MA-550) and was turned down because they considered
this two "towers". I read them the definition of "tower" and
they consulted the city attorney who told them that the ordinance
really does say what it says, and an MA-550 does not count as
a tower. I got my permits.
While I was at the planning counter, I overhead a conversation
between the contractor who built my house and the planner where
the planner was saying he is supposed to require various improvements
to the street, sidewalks, etc but "here is how WE are going to
get around those rules". Like the planner is on the same team
as the builder. The homeowner, or worse yet, the ham, definitely
doesn't get equal treatment.
BTW, the MA-550 is still for sale.
TowerTalk mailing list