At 06:49 PM 8/31/2007, you wrote:
>thats wrong, why should the HAM comunity accept unreasonable government?
>Whats reason for FCC PRB-1 ? We have rights and we need to stand up for
>them !!
Bill,
Rights? Rights! We got no stinkin' rights!
Seriously, if PRB-1 did actually confer "rights," then it would be a
much better situation for us hams. Because then, someone might be
successful in recovering their attorney's fees in situations where it
was necessary to sue a recalcitrant town in order to obtain the
"reasonable accommodation" that PRB-1 requires be provided.
But every state and Federal court that has ruled on this question of
rights (save one early-on decision) has said that neither PRB-1 nor
our licenses confers any rights upon us.
You have to ask: did the town make you do anything they would
normally do for any other 90-foot high, non-residential structure?
Sealed drawings (yes, every page sealed) and a survey/site plan are
pretty standard fare for non-residential construction. It's how the
construction business is typically done.
Homeowners with DIY jobs typically catch a break in the rules and
from the building inspector.
There's nothing in PRB-1 about having to treat to towers just like
putting up a garden shed or adding a room to your house, even though
a tower is an accessory structure and an accessory use to a
residence. Tower construction typically falls under a different
section of the building code and the zoning rules than most things
homeowners dp. You can't cry foul if town hall treats it like any
other instance of non-residential construction.
Sorry, but there are lots of real horror stories out there. In this
case it sounds like the town went by the book and you got a good deal
from a PE and a surveyor.
73,
Mike K1MK
Michael Keane K1MK
k1mk@alum.mit.edu
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|