The proposed ordinance may be found here:
http://www.franklinmo.org/Planning%20&%20Zoning/Telecommunications%20Towers.pdf
It is as bad an ordinance as I have ever seen.
Lou, W0FK
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:09:30 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Lou Laderman <lladerman@earthlink.net>
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] TowerTalk Digest, Vol 76, Issue 78
>To: towertalk@contesting.com, bbowers@mozarks.c
>Message-ID:
>
> <13624281.1240423770892.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>Blake, I emailed you privately to give me a call.
>
>I don't know if you have organized area hams yet, but that should be done to
>meet with and influence the zoning ordinance. A height limit of 35' absent a
>very costly conditional use process doesn't appear in keeping with the
>follwing MO law, which is the adopted incorporation of PRB-1:
>
>Local ordinances regulating amateur radio antennas authorized, limitations,
>requirements--historic preservation considerations allowed.
>
>67.329. 1. No political subdivision shall enact or enforce any order or
>ordinance that does not comply with the limited preemption of the Federal
>Communications Commission Amateur Radio Preemption order, published at 101
>F.C.C. 2d 952 (1985), or any regulation related to amateur radio service
>adopted under 47 CFR Part 97. Any order or ordinance relating to the
>placement, screening, or height of an amateur radio antenna based on health,
>safety, or aesthetic considerations shall reasonably accommodate amateur
>communications and represent the minimal practicable regulation to accomplish
>the political subdivision's legitimate purpose. To the extent not preempted by
>federal law, nothing in this section shall prohibit a political subdivision
>from adopting an order or ordinance prohibiting amateur radio communications
>equipment from interfering with the reception of broadcast radio or television
>signals.
>
>2. The provisions of this section do not prohibit a political subdivision from
>taking action to protect or preserve a historic, a historical, or an
>architectural district that is established by the political subdivision or
>pursuant to state or federal law.
>
>Lou, W0FK
>
>>Message: 8
>>Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:01:53 -0500
>>From: "Blake Bowers" <bbowers@mozarks.com>
>>Subject: [TowerTalk] Franklin County tower ordinance
>>To: <StLASE@yahoogroups.com>
>>Cc: TOWERTALK@contesting.com
>>Message-ID: <49CFC3B8188846E4A8B3A93BD365EA0E@toshibauser>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>> reply-type=original
>>
>>Franklin County MO has a zoning ordinance on the table right now.
>>
>>For HAM towers, it permits up to 35 feet - with Conditional Use
>>Permits required in residental zoned areas.
>>
>>For OVER 35 feet, in RD and RD-2 areas, it simply does not
>>allow the tower, in other areas it requires a CUP or admin permit.
>>
>>PRB-1 says the county has to make reasonable accomodations,
>>is 35 feet reasonable? Most areas have 70 feet or so.
>>
>>The proposed ordinance also has lots of set back requirements,
>>fall zone requirements, and landscaping requirements. I don't at
>>first blush see any exemptions for HAMS on these requirements.
>>
>>In fact, I don't see any exemption from the loading requirements for
>>HAMS.
>>
>>CUP is 500 bucks, admin permit 200.
>>
>>100.00 fee every two years for renewal.
>>
>>This is a bad ordinance.
>>
>>Add to the burden for commercial towers, they want to require
>>us to provide free space for any public service group or agency.
>>
>>I suppose the gas stations in town are providing free gas for the
>>patrol cars....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Don't take your organs to heaven,
>>heaven knows we need them down here!
>>Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today.
>>
>>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:34:26 -0400
>From: jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] plastic owl
>To: ad6aa@sbcglobal.net, towertalk@contesting.com
>Message-ID: <3B122A76-E2C3-4484-8D5D-4D452BD92075@optonline.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>Mike, AD6AA pointed out the use of CD's as deterents to bird
>populations camping on
>antennas. CD's hung from light line have been used successfully on
>the foredeck of
>sailboats, to scare off gulls and other marine birds. We used to
>use 'em liberally,
>down in MD.
>
>On the other hand, they didn't work when it came to a blue heron.
>The big bird
>just sat on the foredeck, and tapped the CD's, looking at itself in
>the reflection.
>Fortunately, the heron was more discrete about where it crapped than
>were the
>seagulls.
>
>N2EA
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:49:20 -0000
>From: "Jim Hargrave" <w5ifp@gvtc.com>
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Sloper or Inverted V
>To: "Towertalk" <towertalk@contesting.com>
>Message-ID: <DCECKDJAOBPBLOFNKPLFIEOGCEAA.w5ifp@gvtc.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>Comments embedded..
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
> >[mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of David Gilbert
> >Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 01:41
> >To: TowerTalk
> >Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Sloper or Inverted V
> >
> >
> >
> >That statement hasn't been accurate for about three decades.
> >Mechanical
> >engineers now understand and can model exactly how bumblebees and
> >hummingbirds fly. The only reason the myth lives on is because people
> >are so fond of quoting it as a rationalization for believing as
> >they want.
> >
>
>Dave,
>
>I apologize if I stepped on your engineering toes. That was not my intent
>with my candid remarks. As usual, conjecture can bring out the best or worse
>of us.
>
> >Within known limitations (close-spaced wires, wires near ground, etc),
> >computer programs do a pretty good job of modeling antennas as well.
>
>Agreed.
>
> >9 times out of 10, those antennas that are claimed
> >to defy the modeling programs don't.
>
>I don't have any "evidence" to counter support for that one. Besides I did
>not knock Modeling in my posts. I merely stated that I had not modeled any
>of my antennas.
>
> >They might defy the careless modeler, but I
> >don't think
> >ham radio is advanced at all by non-quantifiable endorsements and
> >anecdotal experience, at least not when objective inspection and theory
> >would indicate otherwise.
>
>He was not asking for "quantifiable endorsements". As far as your "anecdotal
>experience" I have the logbook to prove the antennas in question work.
>However this is not a brag forum. I saw no benefit to Cal to brag about my
>accomplishments.
>
>But for your criticism, I offer that In recent years I have worked Asia,
>Europe, Russia and South America on 40M RTTY with 50 watts. I accomplished
>this with a 1/4 wave Sloper off the West side of my tower. I also have
>worked 38 states on 40M since moving to this QTH all with the same 40M
>sloper.
>
>I will not argue with your Modeling and the results it shows. However,
>please consider that Theory has its place and so does operational reality.
>
>I stand by my remarks about the sloper/inverted V antennas. Please re-read
>the post which Cal placed and I answered. Here is a reminder:
>---------------
>> I'm working on plans for a 90' tower.
>> Has anyone used the top set of guy wires, with johnnyball insulators at
>the correct places of course to make an inverted V, or Sloper?
>>
>> OR..maybe using the guy wires connected at 60' for another sloper or
>Inverted V?
>---------------
>I simply answered his question. I have seen responses to this kind of
>question advocating both sides of the house. Hence my reasoning for
>answering Cal's query with my own experience.
>
>Is the sloper/inverted V a good antenna? Compared to What?
>
>Simply stated "Inverted V & Slopers DO work". How well, depends on your
>perspective. If you compare it to a dipole in free space, they are probably
>not as good. However, they work extremely well compared to using Bed springs
>for an antenna.
>
>Please don't laugh at that comment.
>I have personally loaded a double bed spring with an old ART-13 and made
>many contacts on 40 & 80 meters.
>
>When I first became a ham I was living in a very small house with no real
>estate for antennas. So in these conditions you improvise. I had heard that
>the ART-13 (my first transmitter) would load anything that had metal in it,
>so I set out to prove it. It worked.
>
>Perhaps you could practice modeling that one. I used a double bed open
>spring installed in a wooden bed frame. Counting the house foundation, the
>spring was perhaps 4 ft off the ground.
>
>By the way that was when you were 6 years old. I'll let you model the math.
>
> >....was correct when he said that a
> >half-sloper (quarter wavelength of wire fed at the tower) is basically
> >an Inverted-V with a very sharp angle (lots of field cancellation) and
> >one leg grounded.
>
>An accurate description. Does that make it good or bad? Again, conjecture
>fits.
>
> >It doesn't sound very attractive in that
> >light, which
> >is probably why historically few hams with something to
> >directly compare
> >it against have ever been very impressed with it.
>
>There has been some form of Sloper/Inverted V in the Antenna/ARRL handbooks
>since I can remember. That should tell you something about its acceptance.
>
>Based on your personal lack of acceptance, maybe you could convince all the
>authors to quit including it in their antenna books. Perhaps you need to
>take another approach toward convincing those of us that have successfully
>used that type antenna for the past 55 years.
>
>Dave, Amateur radio was built on experimentation along with trial and error.
>Please provide a space in your mind for the practical side of the house and
>enjoy this great hobby for what it was founded on. There is no argument,
>theory has its place, but the bottom line is the satisfaction of making a
>contact using something you built, regardless of how you got there.
>
>Again, I apologize if I hit a nerve. I wish you the best of DX. in the mean
>time, I will continue to use my slopers, "It works for me".
>
> * 73's Jim W5IFP *
>
>
>
> >
> >73,
> >Dave AB7E
> >
> >
> >
> >Jim Hargrave wrote:
> >> Antennas are kind of like the Bumble bee. Aeronautical
> >engineers tell you it
> >> can't fly, but they failed to tell the Bumble Bee.
> >>
> >>
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
>
>
>End of TowerTalk Digest, Vol 76, Issue 79
>*****************************************
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|