[SCCC] [TowerTalk] Anyone know the CURRENT Los Angeles CountyZoning Rule...

[Michael Tope]

Marty,

My suspicion is that the part of the ordinance which specifies that the 
tower be retracted when "not in operation" came about as part of a 
compromise to get the maximum height to 75'. In most cases, once a tower 
is in place and neighbors start to mentally filter it (like they do with 
telephone poles), I'll bet nobody would say anything or even notice if 
it is not retracted on a regular basis (the neighbors would have to have 
read the ordinance to even be aware of that rule).  Also, one could 
probably stretch the spirit of  the "retract when not in operation" 
clause by installing an APRS antenna on top the tower. In that case, the 
tower would be "in operation" all the time.

Your points about the rigid transmission  line and the number of 
telescope/retract cycles are well taken. Especially the latter point 
which I had never considered before. I agree that having the option for 
a 75' fixed guyed or freestanding tower would be better than having no 
choice other than the crank-up. Hopefully the folks who negotiated the 
ordinance only gave up on the fixed tower option because the felt they 
had to to get the maximum height to 75'.

73, Mike W4EF............




 

Marty Woll wrote:

>Good point, Kurt, and one worth pressing.  Not only can there a substantial difference in cost between a crank-up and a fixed tower, but a tower that must be lowered cannot accommodate semi-rigid transmission line (e.g., Andrew LDF series) often used for VHF and UHF operation.
>
>Further, most telescoping towers were not designed to be run up and down regularly; doing so would cause premature wear on pulleys, cables, etc. and could actually increase risk of mechanical failure.  The telescoping feature is generally employed to facilitate installation of the tower itself and antenna installation, maintenance and adjustment.
>
>73,
>
>Marty N6VI
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
>
>  It also looks like US Towers and Tri-Ex may have had something to do with it.
>  Rohn obviously wasn't invited to the ordinance writing party.
>   
>           Kurt, W6PH  (40 feet of Rohn 25G not in LA County)
>_______________________________________________
>SCCC mailing list
>SCCC at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/sccc
>
>
>  
>