David,
I have a couple of comments.
First, It might help if you referred to Amateur Radio as a service and not a
hobby. Example:
"My intended antenna will be used as part of the MIRO and in pursuit of
my.." interest in participating in the Amateur Radio Service.
This change indicates that you will be a service to the community rather
than just a "hobby".
Another change is to point out that the courts have recognized the need for
local authorities to provide reasonable accommodation for amateur radio. A
direct example like yours would be Pentel (US Circuit Court). Sylvia Pentel
was granted a permit for a crank up tower like yours in a residential
neighborhood where similar limits existed in the Zoning Ordinance. The
courts have since gone past that in Marchand (NH Supreme Court) in
recognizing that the accommodation must take in account for the particular
needs of the amateur in question. That case allowed three 90 foot towers
where lower courts ruled that no antennas were allowed at all.
Good luck and 73,
Jerry, K0TV (The direct beneficiary of Marchand)
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Giuliani" <David@giuliani.org>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 3:48 AM
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
|