Seems to me that six acres is a fairly decent amount of property for neighbors
to find complaints about. I am assuming that the siting would still fulfill
setback provisions, etc., thus
the only complaints would be perceived/subjective visual pollution. I can hear
the complaints now if a cell tower was to be put up as once again, the
ininformed insist that the laws of
physics can be violated. Then too, the objections could be easily rationalized
away - it all depends on whose ox is being gored.
Tom - WA2BPE
Bill Turner wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 21:17:38 -0400, "Jerry Muller" <k0tv@adelphia.net>
> wrote:
>
> >This guy got off easy. I live in "Live Free or Die" New Hampshire and had to
> >spend over $25K in legal fees to protect three towers on six acres that are
> >almost invisible. (New Hampshire Supreme Court, Marchand v. Hudson)
> >
> >Jerry, K0TV
>
> _________________________________________________________
>
> Seems to me that you're the one that got off easy. I can see the
> justification for one tower being necessary at a height of 75 feet or
> so, but I understand yours are 90 feet, right? And three of them?
>
> I'm all in favor of ham radio - been licensed for 46 years - but even
> I might think that's pushing the neighbors a bit.
>
> --
> 73, Bill W7TI
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
> Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any
> questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|