[SEDXC] ND4V to appear before Norcross Zoning & Appeals Board -Thursday Night - 7:00 PM City Hall

[Grant Bright]

Hi Mike & DXers,

Please give us an update after the meeting tonight.

These type of "zoning crisis" are certainly a determent to 
ham radio along with the community deed restrictions.

I wonder if it would help to do some education about how 
Amateur Radio helps in disasters?

Perhaps the ARRL Division Director could make a presentation 
about the benefits to a well organized Amateur community and 
how Amateur can help when traditional systems fail. The cell 
phone situation in California is a good example...on Sunday 
through Tuesday trying to call a California cell was very 
difficult.

While the DX Club has DX related activities as a primary 
goal, perhaps some of our people might make effective 
presentations.

I saw very effective emergency Amateur radio activities when 
I was in graduate school in the mid 90s in the DFW area. 
When a tornado threat appeared, an emergency network was 
activated. Hams were often the first responders when a 
tornado hit a community or grapefruit sized hail (yes, 
GRAPEFRUIT) hit a park full of people.

Is it possible there is a hold over from CB interference 
days, that Amateur Radio doesn't get a "pass" when it comes 
to antenna height issues? Of course, neighbors like Mike's 
lawyer neighbor think they can use the law as a sword to 
attack instead of a shield to protect. Certainly there are 
neighbors who do not want a 300 feet red and white cell 
tower next door...but our towers are not nearly so obvious 
or obtrusive.

73s,

Grant
W4OJC



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike, ND4V" <nd4v at comcast.net>
To: <gars at yahoogroups.com>; <SEDXC at contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 10:26 PM
Subject: [SEDXC] ND4V to appear before Norcross Zoning & 
Appeals Board -Thursday Night - 7:00 PM City Hall


> Well, the saga continues and I can use your help!
>
> Let me catch up the GARS and SEDX folk. The City of 
> Norcross has declared my
> 60 foot tower to be "illegal".  Their position is that 
> anything above 35
> feet is illegal in a residential area unless one requests 
> and receives a
> height variance. (No easy feat as we've found out -- the 
> application fee
> alone is $500.00 and the Zoning Appeals Board has no 
> criteria to allow them
> to grant a height variance.)
>
> I engaged attorney Jim Altman (W4UCK) the ARRL recommended 
> counsel for this
> area to help me.  He made a presentation to the Zoning & 
> Appeals Board which
> explained the need for a 60 foot tower on 20 meters and he 
> further explained
> PRB-1. He also provided them with case law that has held 
> the 35 foot height
> restriction to be "unreasonable". However, an unhappy 
> neighbor/attorney made
> an argument that the tower was an eyesore and was 
> destroying the home values
> of all of the houses around me. He further stated that the 
> City had defeated
> the cell phone company's attempt to put up a tower and 
> they could beat
> PRB-1. At the appeals board hearing last month,  the Chair 
> could not get the
> votes to grant the variance.  However they likewise could 
> not get a motion
> to defeat the request, so they tabled the request for a 
> month.
>
> In the intervening month, the Community Planning 
> Department consulted the
> City's Attorney who advised them that the ordinance was 
> most likely invalid
> and they would likely lose if it went to court.
>
> Last week Jim Altman received a letter from the Community 
> Planning
> Department asking if we'd be open to having the zoning and 
> appeals board
> table our request for a variance for 3 months while the 
> City of Norcross
> works on drafting a new ordinance that will comply with 
> PRB-1.  Supposedly
> affter the ordinance is passed, my need for a variance 
> will be moot and I
> can withdraw the application.
>
> Jim and I agree that if he can have input to the drafting 
> process, that I'll
> go along with that scenario. This course of action gives 
> us the City a
> chance to not only fix the broken wording in the current 
> ordinance but also
> to remove the requirement that Norcross hams with 71 foot 
> towers live in
> commercial or light industrial zoning districts ....
>
> I am scheduled to go before the Zoning Appeals Board again 
> this Thursday
> night at 7:00 pm (Norcross City Hall).  One can not be 
> sure that the Appeals
> Board will accept the Planning Departments proposed 
> solution.  There was
> talk at last month's meeting that maybe more neighbors 
> should be asked to
> come to the hearing and say what they think .....
>
> Just in case the neighbors fill the hearing with folks who 
> oppose cell phone
> towers in their back yards,  I'd like to ask any of you 
> with an hour to
> spare on Thursday night to come to the hearing.  I know 
> that a couple of
> City Council members have said they'd be there. Your 
> presence will go a long
> way in convincing the City Fathers that this is more than 
> a spat between two
> neighbors and will perhaps pave the way to fixing the 
> broken wording in the
> ordinance to make Norcross a ham friendly place once 
> again.
>
> Thanks in advance and 73,
> Mike Weathers, ND4V
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SEDXC mailing list
> SEDXC at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/sedxc
>