In effect, this situation actually did apply to me. I was the actual subject
of Marchand v. Hudson.
What the decision said was that under NH Accessory Use Law, my three tower
installation was forbidden because there were no other three tower
installations in the neighborhood. The Supreme Court opinion actually said
that they were not allowed under that law. This is how the Court effectively
granted my tower permit without wiping out NH Accessory Use Law. If the case
had been decided on the Town's appeal ground, The ZBA would have been given
the power to decide what is "customary" for a town. The Court didn't want to
cede all that power to the ZBAs in NH, so what they did was to say that they
found that my towers were illegal under that part of the law. That was the
part that Marchand won on. It was however a totally hollow victory because
although they viewed Marchand's argument on that ground as valid, they went
on to say that under state law, nobody can make a law that prevents
reasonable accommodation of a ham's need.
In effect they said that although my three tower installation was Illegal
under the ordinance, it could be allowed if it was necessary to accommodate
my particular needs. They sent it back to the ZBA and the ZBA found that
anything LESS than three towers would be unreasonable for my needs.
Therefore trumping the ordinance.
My permit has been upheld by the Court and the ZBA on the grounds that
although it was illegal, the town had to grant it under RSA:674-16(IV) and
RSA:674-17(III) which is the NH codification of PRB-1.
Although I'm a 160 meter DXer, I'm not that serious that I need a four
square. My three tower array (which is laid out to be a phased array on 160)
will do nicely. I expect to get stomped by KC1XX with his three tower end
fire array on Europe. I'll work most of the folks he does and that's fine
with me.
73, Jerry, K0TV
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Turner" <wrt@dslextreme.com>
To: <k0tv@arrl.net>
Cc: <k0tv@arrl.net>; <brewerj@squared.com>; <towertalk@contesting.com>; "Jim
Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Neighbors "rights"
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 11:21:22 -0400, Jerry Muller <k0tv@adelphia.net>
wrote:
>Now that reasonable accomodation is the law in New Hampshire, overriding
>any zoning ordinances by the way, even this ordinance can be overridden
>easily. All you have to do is to be a 160 meter DXer (as an example),
>have a suitable place to put it, and the town must give you a permit for
>a 160 meter four square (four 120+ foot towers in a square). Sure they
>can deny you a permit for this antenna if you live on a 1/2 acre plot,
>but not if you've got the land for it.
_________________________________________________________
Has this scenario actually happened or are you just theorizing?
--
Bill, W7TI
|