Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+\[ham\-law\]\s+Important\s+Cellular\s+Telephone\s+Tower\s+Decision\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] [ham-law] Important Cellular Telephone Tower Decision (score: 1)
Author: "Wilson" <kd8deg@centurytel.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 18:23:51 -0400
FYI KD8DEG Tom Colleagues: The case described below, with URL, might be used, in the right ham radio case, to stand for several propositions: 1. The Town has no right to "prefer" another technology,
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-09/msg00045.html (14,191 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] [ham-law] Important Cellular Telephone Tower Decision (score: 1)
Author: "Roger (K8RI)" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:02:58 -0400
Here in our township it's zoned either farming, residential, or commercial. You can put up all the ham towers you want as they are now excluded up to 100' and no permit is required or given. Above 10
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-09/msg00049.html (17,785 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] [ham-law] Important Cellular Telephone Tower Decision (score: 1)
Author: "Dick Green WC1M" <wc1m73@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 01:32:05 -0400
Interesting that your town distinguishes between ham and commercial antennas. Our town does, too, sort of. There's a basic height limit of 35 feet, but it's waived for private, non-commercial antenna
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-09/msg00054.html (20,645 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] [ham-law] Important Cellular Telephone Tower Decision (score: 1)
Author: "Roger (K8RI)" <k8ri-on-towertalk@tm.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 02:13:17 -0400
We had two hams on the board that was writing the zoning ordinances. They figured 80' would be plenty until I put up mine. Now it says 100' and they don't care what we put on them for antennas. <snip
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-09/msg00055.html (7,878 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu