Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+\[RE\]\s+Tower\s+Lawsuit\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+\[RE\]\s+Tower\s+Lawsuit\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] [RE] Tower Lawsuit (score: 1): Author: Rick Mainhart <mainhart@triad.rr.com>; Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:27:56 -0500; Drax, You may wish to take a look at the following: http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2007/Bills/House/PDF/H1340v0.pdf A friend of mine recently convinced the city of High Point that their 70' restrictio; /archives//html/Towertalk/2012-02/msg00120.html (6,809 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] [RE] Tower Lawsuit (score: 1): Author: Charles Mills <w3yni1@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 11:35:03 -0500; This does little good in this case however. He's up against CC&R's which are private land use agreements and not pre-empted but this or the Federal PRB-1 statute. There's only a few of these that are; /archives//html/Towertalk/2012-02/msg00130.html (8,595 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] [RE] Tower Lawsuit (score: 1): Author: Wayne Kline <w3ea@hotmail.com>; Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 11:50:25 -0500; WOW that's seems like a win for the Ham community But there that one word that frightens me Radio operators to heights of 90 feet or lower unless the restriction is necessary to 16 achieve a clearly; /archives//html/Towertalk/2012-02/msg00131.html (9,830 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] [RE] Tower Lawsuit (score: 1): Author: "Mike Baker" <k7dd@cox.net>; Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 13:16:48 -0700; The last time I heard about a municipality using the "Aesthetic" issue, the attorney took pictures of stuff around town that looks like total crap (fences made of all manner of ugly stuff, houses pai; /archives//html/Towertalk/2012-02/msg00133.html (12,078 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]