You are correct in that the language of the proposal does not in itself
place a limit. And everyone understands that. What you don't understand is
that if this is passed into law, then the interpretation by local governing
bodies is that "95 feet is enough" and if they allow 95 feet then they
don't have to allow more. By putting a number in, there will be an assumed
limit at that number. Thus setting a "glass ceiling" above which getting
approval for a higher tower will be more difficult.
Personally I find 95 feet to be higher than I would want to go on my small
city lot. But if I ever make the move to the country, I don't want the
county zoning board to tell me I can't have a tower over 95 feet on a 10
acre plot.
At 11:23 PM 6/30/02, WA2BPE wrote:
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>Towertalk mailing list
>Towertalk@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
Jim Rhodes K0XU
jim@rhodesend.net
|