While 95' would be "acceptable" by most, there are for many people and
circumstances where it is certainly much too low. In New York State, depending
on where you are, there can be serious problems with 20' or no problems with
200.
The proposed legislation, NYS Assembly, A.1565, states: "...2. NO LOCAL
ORDINANCE, BY-LAW, RULE OR REGULATION, OR OTHER LOCAL LAW SHALL: (A) RESTRICT
AMATEUR RADIO SUPPORT STRUCTURE HEIGHT TO LESS THAN NINETY-FIVE FEET ABOVE
GROUND LEVEL; OR (B) RESTRICT THE NUMBER OF ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURES."
My apologies for the caps, but it is a direct quote from a proposed legal
document.
Thus, it does NOT **limit** structures to 95' maximum; in fact, exactly the
opposite - the key word is LESS!! It is always possible to gain variances *if*
you do your homework to have individual merits considered. The real problem is
the large number of ignorant (not stupid) zoning boards/local legislatures who
know nothing of the Federal preemption of PRB-1 issued 17 years ago. There also
exists the "home rule" advocates and Association of Towns that feel that their
power to control and the "balancing of interests" is being usurped; they have
failed to come to grips with the FCC preemption. The purpose of this bill is
simply to put into place legislation at the state level in concert with PRB-1.
In this manner, hopefully common sense *will* prevail and acrimonious and costly
lawsuits will become a thing of the past. It is unfortunate that more laws be
added to the books, but classically, government makes laws, not solutions. The
successful will learn to understand, work with, and even participate in the
writing of "common sense" regulations.
I, personally, have become involved in helping mold the rewriting of zoning in
my township; several local townships are in the process of rewriting their
Master Plans. I intend to do all I can to assure that zoning re:
towers/antennas is reasonable. Indeed, one local village's zoning specifically
(and wisely) yields to Federal statutes relative to Amateur antenna structures.
One task on my list is to educate those that will listen that the laws of
Physics shall not be denied - you want cell phones? - you want TV/FM reception
(and you don't have cable available)? - you live in an area of rough terrain? -
height *does* count!
Respectfully,
Tom - WA2BPE
mcduffie@actcom.net wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jun 2002 10:54:12 -0700, Al Williams wrote:
>
> > At our clubs bi-weekly meeting the president conducting the meeting
> > always speaks a phrase containing "... for the good of the order..."
> > I seems to me that a 95-foot regulation would definitely be
> > overwhelmingly for the "good of the order".
>
> There shouldn't be a specified limit. Each case should be considered on its
> own merit. Placing a 95 foot limit in one area and then having that copied
> in another doesn't judge each on its own. That would be like the city near
> me adapting a 55' limit and then the county doing the same thing, just
> because. I can put a tower up several hundred feet tall. The county
> doesn't care. Common sense should rule, but I know some areas have just
> plain ran out of such a thing.
>
> Gary
>
> a g 0 n at a r r l dot n e t
> http colon slash slash mcduffie dot ws
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Towertalk mailing list
> Towertalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|