Excellent point David, and I appreciate you and David's position. Keep in
mind that the City's coffers are full of $$$ at this time, (Rising tax
revenues) and they have the willingness and ability to point those dollars
against you, David's, and my position. I know of many towers put up on MI
and were not inspected, approved or dissapproved. You will be beaking a
precidence that may backfire on all. Keep in mind that the City engineer
ordered my tower down and removed.
Geo W7LFD
|-----Original Message-----
|From: David Cook [mailto:davec@netdave.com]
|Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:28 PM
|To: towertalk@contesting.com
|Cc: 'George'; 'David Giuliani'
|Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] draft letter in support of tower permit...
|
|
|Whoa, Nellie! I think you're missing the point George. David is not trying
|to "get away" with putting up a tower, he wants to set a precident for all
|of us on the Island. As members of MIRO, which is sponsored and funded by
|the city, we already have credibility for our cause. What David is
|hoping to
|do will benefit us all, yourself included if you happen to get some new
|neighbors that suspect your tower doesn't meet code or
|neighborhood courtesy
|and decide to file a complaint with the city.
|
|My recent experience in talking with the city planner was very productive
|and positive. Mr. Scandola not only knew exactly what I wanted to put up,
|but was very knowledgable on the city rules. As a result, there
|should be no
|dispute in the future about my contraption. The fact that you put your's up
|and haven't had any problems is no guarrantee that David, or any
|of the rest
|of us, can get away with it too.
|
|73, Dave, WA0TTN
|
|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
|> [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of George
|> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 9:51 AM
|> To: David Giuliani; towertalk@contesting.com
|> Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] draft letter in support of tower permit...
|>
|>
|> Put it up and don't tell them. Advice from a Mercer Island
|> tower owner
|> since 1980.
|>
|> Geo W7LFD
|>
|> |-----Original Message-----
|> |From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
|> |[mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of David Giuliani
|> |Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 12:48 AM
|> |To: towertalk@contesting.com
|> |Subject: [TowerTalk] draft letter in support of tower permit...
|> |
|> |
|> |
|> |I'd appreciate any advice on a letter I'm about to send to my local
|> |authorities re applying for a building permit for my tower. I'd
|> |like to use
|> |your collective experience....
|> |
|> |I am applying for a permit for a tower for an amateur radio
|> antenna, and
|> |have been discussing the situation with JS. He suggested
|> that I send you
|> |some background information.
|> |
|> |
|> |Overview
|> |
|> |I am an amateur radio operator, with federal license WA6PXX.
|> I am also a
|> |member of the Mercer Island Radio Operators (MIRO). MIRO's
|> amateur radio
|> |operators volunteer their time and equipment to supply
|> |communications in any
|> |possible emergency.
|> |
|> |My intended antenna will be used as part of the MIRO and in
|> pursuit of my
|> |amateur radio hobby. An antenna well suited for my intended use and
|> |location would at a height of 90'. However, I could live with a
|> |65' maximum
|> |height in a compromise situation.
|> |
|> |The mast I'm proposing to erect is a 55' crank-up tower,
|> onto which the
|> |antenna would be mounted, reaching a total height of 65'. The
|> |installation
|> |will comply with the manufacturer's specifications. Antenna heights
|> |significantly below this would be impaired by hills and
|> other structures.
|> |
|> |Unfortunately, the current Mercer Island ordinance limits
|> such antennas to
|> |35':
|> |
|> | 19.02.010 Single-family. D. Building Height Limit. No
|> |building shall exceed 30 feet in height above the average building
|> |elevation
|> |to the top of the structure except that on the downhill side
|> of a sloping
|> |lot the building may extend to a height of 35 feet measured
|> from existing
|> |grade to the top of the exterior wall facade supporting the
|> roof framing,
|> |rafters, trusses, etc.; provided, the roof ridge does not
|> exceed 30 feet in
|> |height above the average building elevation. Antennas,
|> lightning rods,
|> |plumbing stacks, flagpoles, electrical service leads, chimneys and
|> |fireplaces and other similar appurtenances may extend to a
|> maximum of five
|> |feet above the height allowed for the main structure.
|> |
|> |I've always had good relations with the City, and wish to
|> find a way to
|> |accomplish my needs with minimum difficulty. I've gotten
|> some advice to
|> |"just do it." However, I feel it's best to be totally open
|> with the City,
|> |and find a way to accommodate its needs and mine. It is
|> also better for to
|> |obtain a permit to avoid any future arguments.
|> |
|> |To that end, I've attempted to be as careful as possible to
|> |minimize impact:
|> |
|> | * The proposed location minimizes any view impact to the
|> |neighbors.
|> |
|> | * The choice of a flag pole style tower gives a
|> more pleasing
|> |appearance than a triangular tower structure.
|> |
|> | * The tower being proposed is a crank-up. In its minimum
|> |height position the top of the antenna will remain below
|> 35'. I will keep
|> |the antenna below 35' during extensive periods of non-use.
|> Thus, one can
|> |expect that on the average, it will be below 35'.
|> |
|> |JS appreciated these points, but was still concerned that the
|> |maximum height
|> |would reach beyond 35' while in use.
|> |
|> |
|> |Federal and State Law on Amateur Radio Antennas
|> |
|> |I mentioned to JS that there are federal and Washington
|> state laws on this
|> |topic. He suggested that I bring these to your attention.
|> |
|> |The Federal government issued a law in 1985 called PRB-1, requiring
|> |reasonable accommodation of amateur radio antennas (text
|> attached). Our
|> |state enacted in 1994 its own law reinforcing PRB-1:
|> |
|> | RCW 35A.21.260. Amateur radio antennas --
|> Local regulation
|> |to conform with federal law. No city shall enact or enforce an
|> |ordinance or
|> |regulation that fails to conform to the limited preemption
|> |entitled "Amateur
|> |Radio Preemption, 101 FCC 2nd 952 (1985)" issued by the federal
|> |communications commission. An ordinance or regulation adopted by a
|> |code city
|> |with respect to amateur radio antennas shall conform to the
|> limited federal
|> |preemption, that states local regulations that involve placement,
|> |screening,
|> |or height of antennas based on health, safety, or aesthetic
|> considerations
|> |must be crafted to reasonably accommodate amateur
|> communications, and to
|> |represent the minimal practicable regulation to accomplish the local
|> |authority's legitimate purpose.
|> |
|> |Other municipalities have adjusted their laws accordingly. A
|> |common outcome
|> |is to allow antennas of 65'-70' height as a reasonable
|> accommodation. Case
|> |law indicates that height restrictions such as Mercer
|> Island's are not
|> |reasonable accommodations.
|> |
|> |
|> |Possible Solutions
|> |
|> |I believe it is in Mercer Island's best interests to
|> accommodate amateur
|> |radio installations, especially for those involved in MIRO.
|> My equipment,
|> |for example, operates on back up battery power, and hence
|> can be used in
|> |major emergencies. During the east coast power grid failure
|> a couple of
|> |weeks ago, cell phones were useless, and ham radio operators supplied
|> |significant support, as they have in other emergencies. Living on an
|> |island, it's important to be especially well prepared.
|> |
|> |I see a couple of possible solutions which effectively
|> balance the issues:
|> |
|> |* Interpret the 35' rule to apply to fixed structures rather than
|> |crank-up towers. The visual impact is certainly reduced by
|> the occasional
|> |use.
|> |
|> |* Modify the ordinance to explicitly exclude amateur radio towers,
|> |placing either no height limit on them, or one which is more
|> realistic for
|> |amateur radio use, such as 65'-70'. It is reasonable to expect such
|> |installations to comply with the manufacturer's recommendations.
|> |
|> |I am anxious to resolve this situation rapidly and
|> inexpensively. We are
|> |currently constructing our new house, and it will be far
|> more economical to
|> |do pour the foundation at the same time as one of the other pours.
|> |
|> |
|> |
|>
|>
|> _______________________________________________
|>
|> See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers",
|> "Wireless Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free,
|> 1-800-333-9041 with any questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
|>
|> _______________________________________________
|> TowerTalk mailing list
|> TowerTalk@contesting.com
|> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|
_______________________________________________
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather
Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|