Hans,
Sent you PM on this. Would you check your emails?
Thanks
73, Tom W1ALZ
On 2/7/2017 1:15 PM, Hans Hammarquist via TowerTalk wrote:
My town (in Vermont) has 40 feet as the local hight restriction and accept an other 12 feet
"sticking up" above present structure. The zoning board was not against me putting
up an 85 foot tower but required a hearing as I needed a variance. My problem was the neighbor
that didn't want "the horizon of nature be disturbed by technology. Due to an
administrative mess-up the hearing got delayed for a year. When I finally got my permit it was
autumn and I had to wait for the spring to get my tower up. I missed the peak of the solar
spot cycle. Well, more will come.
ARRL was able get me in touch with an attorney that help me for free. He was very helpful. There
are also several court cases available on line. The favorite is a case from Florida where the judge
ordered the town to pay for the ham's legal fee (~$18.000). I had that case with a few other in my
application to "soften up" the zoning board. It is always good to indicate that they may
up getting additional expenses if they decide to "fight". Most towns don't like extra
expenses.
A fun note: My neighbor tried to stop the permit by claiming I was going to use it "to eavesdrop on
telephone conversations" as my son had demonstrated for them how he was able to listen to a phone
conversation "from northern Vermont" which is about 130 miles from our house located on the
southern tip of Vermont. They also highlighted the possibility of "radioactive radiation" from the
tower. Don't you love these people?
Hans - N2JFS
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|