The crux of our constitutional right to pursue happiness
is best summed up in the idea that one mans fist can
extend as far as another man's nose. The problem with
towers is that everyone has a different opinion of where
the other guys nose begins. Personally I can sympathize
with both points of view. There are for example
neighnorhoods around my QTH that are "high end". All
the lawns are manacured by landscapers and people
park their cars in the garage at night (not many 4 x 4
pickups over there). There is a certain look and
feel to those neighborhoods. In that situation, I can
see how someone might be upset if I showed up next
store on a stuck a 110' bertha pole in the backyard. Of
course over here on the other side of the tracks where
I live, zoning is much looser. My neighbor is an urban
hillbilly. He keeps a 4x4, a cigarette boat, and a little
travel trailer parked in the front yard. His front yard
is usually filled with over the top decorations for the
latest holiday (he installs a large cemetary during
halloween for instance). Does this bother me - no
not one bit. This is unicorporporated Los Angeles
county. Expectations are (and should be) different
here than down the street in CC&R-Ville.
Whats needed is a dose of common sense that is
consistent with the character of the neighborhood.
Once you get out in a rural area, there shouldn't be
any restrictions, especially if the property in question
meets a certain minimum size. At my previous QTH
in Brevard County, Florida the regulations allowed
for 35' without any permit. Installations above 35'
required a conditional use permit if the property size
was less than 1 acre. If your lot was greater than 1
acre, then there were no restrictions.
I think George is correct - the amateur community
needs to be involved with local planning commissions
so that reasonable standards are adopted. In Los
Angeles county the ham community got involved with
the planning board and got them to compromise on
amateur tower regulations. You can have whatever
you want under 35'. For installations over 35' you
can have one "whip" up to 75' tall (low band vertical??)
and one tower up to 75' tall provided that it is a
motorized crank-up that can be nested when not in
use. Not exactly paradise, but better than nothing
when you consider the population density in this area.
The end of the other guys nose is always moving.
Where it ends up largely depends on who makes
the most noise. Imagine antenna CC&Rs in the
days before cable TV when everyone needed a
roof mounted antenna for TV reception and in some
cases a tall tower. Its pretty hard to tell a ham that
his antenna installation will distract from the
neighborhood aesthetics when everyone in the
neighborhood has a 40 foot tall TV tower in their
backyard. Cable TV and undeground utilities came
along and changed everyones view of what is
aesthetically pleasing. There is a whole generation
of up and coming homebuyers that have grown
up on cable TV. Their perception of towers will
certainly be different than someone like me who
grew up in a town where practically every house
on the block had a 50 foot tower for TV reception.
73 de Mike, W4EF...........................................
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Skoubis" <george.skoubis@verizon.net>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 9:14 PM
Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift?
>
> Rick,
>
> I live in Wisconsin and the latest trend is to impose county-wide
> ordinances limiting antenna towers. It doesn't matter how far you live
from
> town, or if you own a section (640 acres), you still need to go to the
> variance committee if you want to build a tower taller than the allowable
> height (I can't remember what it is in our county).
>
> I went to the county meeting when they were drawing up the draft
proposal
> (there were about 10 other hams that went also). The committee said the
> main purpose is to limit the number of cell towers and their location but
> that they were only excluding amateur towers less than 50 or 60 feet (I
just
> don't remember the height that was agreed upon).
>
> I talked to the head of the zoning department after the meeting and he
> mentioned that the ordinance doesn't apply to me since I live in the city
> limits. The city has no antenna/tower ordinance and I am exempt from the
> county one. I can build a taller tower (without a variance hearing) on my
> city lot than my brother-in-law can on his farm a mile away.
>
> The county I live in is Iowa county Wisconsin, there are probably as
many
> cows as people here. I don't think this is just an issue for people who
> live in cities, suburbs, or CC&R restricted communities. These county
> ordinances will continue to happen and every ham should speak up to their
> county representative when the ordinance is still in the planning stage.
>
> Our proposed county ordinance did not originally exempt amateurs, it
> restricted all antennas/structures that could TRANSMIT a radio signal. A
> local amateur club notified the local hams and we contacted the zoning
> administrator and sent him information as well as attended the meeting.
> There were many citizens that didn't want to exempt hams at all (most of
> them cited visual pollution as their dislike).
>
> Don't think we can leave these issues to our elected representatives and
> they will protect our interests. They listen to those that complain the
> loudest, they only changed their mind when presented with facts and
> testimonials (they seemed most impressed with a letter from the National
> Weather Service emphasizing our weather spotting help).
>
> If the county introduced this ordinance and none of us spoke up to have
it
> amended we would have a county ordinance that banned all antennas that
could
> transmit a signal. This would have been contrary to PRB-1, but you would
> have to go to court to get it turned over. Who pays for this? The ham
does
> twice! Your tax dollars pay for the attorneys for the municipality to go
to
> court and amend the ordinance after it is overturned. You also would
> probably hire an attorney to take the case against the municipality.
>
> I do NOT agree that is not right to impose our likes on our neighbors,
> they don't pay my taxes. I wouldn't LIKE it if they painted their house
> purple, but I wouldn't try to get an ordinance passed against purple
houses.
> If you don't pose a health or safety hazard to others and you pay your
taxes
> you should be able to use your land for any legal use you see fit. Period.
>
> My father came to the U.S. from Greece when he was 15 to start a better
> life in a free country. I can go to Greece and build a tower on his land
> and notify no one. I find that ironic.
>
> Sorry about the rant, I just feel that we can't just sit by and let these
> restrictions of our rights continue without putting up a fight.
>
> 73,
>
> George / KF9YR
>
>
> Hello All
> I have been following this thread and I read the newsletter from the ARRL.
I
> don't think this is an issue for the ARRL or the FCC. After all if you
> choose to buy a house in an area that has CC&R's then you know from the
time
> you bought the house you couldn't put up a tower or outside antenna. If
you
> buy a house without CC&R's then find out that the city has restrictions on
> towers or outside antennas then you can use PB-1 to fight it.
> It is up to the buyer to find out these things before you buy a house. You
> can make it part of the contract that there are no restrictions on towers
or
> outside antennas. If it is revealed that there are restrictions then the
> contract is void.
> If you can't find an area where their are no CC&R's then you can buy land
in
> the country and have plenty of room for towers and such. You have to
decide
> which is more important to you and your family, no antennas or ham radio
and
> a nice neighborhood close to schools malls and work or a country home
>
> maybe not as nice as a city home) where you can have all the towers you
want
> but have to drive farther to work, schools and the mall. You have choices
it
> is not fair to impose our likes on our neighbors just because we are hams.
> Just my point of view on this
> 73
> Rick
> KC5AJX
> P.S. I live in the country. 20 min drive to the nearest town of any size
and
> 45 min drive to the nearest big city.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
>
>
> AN Wireless Self Supporting Towers are now available! Windloading tables,
> foundation diagrams and charts, along with full details are now at the
> AN Wireless Web site: http://www.ANWireless.com
>
> -----
> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
> Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
>
>
> AN Wireless Self Supporting Towers are now available! Windloading tables,
> foundation diagrams and charts, along with full details are now at the
> AN Wireless Web site: http://www.ANWireless.com
>
> -----
> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
> Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
>
AN Wireless Self Supporting Towers are now available! Windloading tables,
foundation diagrams and charts, along with full details are now at the
AN Wireless Web site: http://www.ANWireless.com
-----
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
|