New regs are 150' before lighting is necessary by the way.
70/7460-1L replaced 70/7460-1K
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Patrick Greenlee <patrick_g@windstream.net>
wrote:
> Hans, you forgot to mention mind control by talking to them via the
> electrical outlets. What a PITA you had to suffer over something really so
> simple. Boy am I glad the FAA regs are my only impediment and I have no
> plans for going 200 ft tall so no worries. My greatest single concern is
> someone ignoring all the no trespassing signs, barbed wire fences, signs at
> the tower bases warning of danger, prohibiting climbing and so forth and
> getting hurt. Towers are called attractive nuisances as are swimming pools.
>
> The*attractive nuisance*doctrine applies to the law of torts, in the
> United States. It states that a landowner may be held liable for injuries
> to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by an object on
> the land that is likely to attract children.
>
> Patrick NJ5G
>
>
>
> On 2/7/2017 12:15 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
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ed Sawyer <sawyered@earthlink.net>
>> To: towertalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
>> Sent: Tue, Feb 7, 2017 1:31 am
>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Advice on tower restrictions possible new install
>>
>>
>> K6OK stated -
>>
>> "Wouldn't you want the opposite? If a county has a blanket height
>>
>> restriction on all types of structures, and that height limit is
>>
>> lower than my planned towers, then I would avoid that county
>>
>> unless it had a ham tower exemption. If a county has cell phone
>>
>> tower regulations (which are common), I would avoid that county
>>
>> unless they exempt ham towers from those rules.
>>
>>
>>
>> But if you can't change counties, having these restrictions is not
>>
>> necessarily a deal-killer. You might have to apply for a use permit
>>
>> or a variance, requiring more time, money and anguish.
>>
>> Unfortunately there's no guarantee they will approve your application."
>>
>>
>>
>> I am not a lawyer certainly. K1VR and the ARRL support services are a good
>> way to get proper advice. That
>>
>> Being said, you never want to ask for a "variance" against a law that
>> doesn't apply to you. You want to state
>>
>> That your request is not restricted by the current regulations. Its NOT a
>> commercial permit for a tower, its
>>
>> A personal use auxiliary structure. So any clerk telling you otherwise
>> should not prevent you from doing what you
>>
>> Want to do.
>>
>>
>>
>> Its also a protected use under Federal Pre-emption - PRB-1. The fact that
>> the state or county/city/town has not
>>
>> Enacted language in their law to accommodate the pre-emption, should not
>> dissuade you from exercising your federally granted rights.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think the question is to decide what the response is after sizing up the
>> situation. Has the state enacted PRB1 language? If so, what does it say
>> about your plans and what are you up against. Do the local regulations
>> mention the case of personal antenna supports or not.
>>
>>
>>
>> Certain local groups are up for a fight and certain ones don't want a
>> legal
>> battle especially if no neighbor is complaining. Here in rural Vermont -
>> they were "thankful" for the guidance and glad to hear they weren't going
>> to
>> be 200 ft tall.
>>
>>
>>
>> Note that none of the above deals with HOAs which is a horse of a
>> different
>> color.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ed N1UR
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/13907 - Release Date: 02/07/17
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|