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

[Bruce Horn]

Hi,

My personal experience with a 89-foot permitted crank-up tower within the city limits of Los Angeles is contradictory to the premise that neighbors won't notice if you leave the tower completely cranked up all of the time. In my case the top antenna is at 107 feet when the tower is completely extended, and it's at about 70 feet when cranked down (lower height limited by a tree, rather than minimum height of tower). After erecting the tower, I gradually started leaving it completely extended for long periods of time. About a year after I erected the tower, I received a call from the city planning office reminding me of the limitation specified in my permit as to when the tower could be fully extended. The call was in response to a complaint from a neighbor 5 houses away. It's likely that the height is more noticeable from several houses away than from next door neighbors.

Your mileage may vary.

73 de Bruce, WA7BNM   (bhorn at hornucopia.com)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Tope" <W4EF at dellroy.com>
To: "Marty Woll" <n6vi at socal.rr.com>
Cc: W6ph at aol.com, sccc at contesting.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 8:00:34 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Re: [SCCC] [TowerTalk] Anyone know the CURRENT Los Angeles	CountyZoning Rule...

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
>
>
>  
>


_______________________________________________
SCCC mailing list
SCCC at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/sccc