[TowerTalk] best antennas at low height above ground

[John Langdon]

The city is not "required to okay any height you need", and if you take that
attitude with them you may be tied up in red tape for a while.  But, in
Texas they are required to "reasonably accommodate" the amateur.  There is a
good paper available from the ARRL that makes the case for at least 70' or
so for HF antennas.  The other test that might be imposed is spacing, i.e.,
if you want a 70' tower it needs to be 70' or more from your lot line.  Many
municipalities do not require this, but they might.  I believe there was a
case in the east somewhere where a court interpreted "reasonable
accommodation" such that the ham was allowed to put up stacked mono-band
vagis on a tower over 100', despite the neighbor's protests.  But a full
sized tribander at 70 feet could be considered reasonable by some.

73 and Good Luck,

John N5CQ


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
[mailto:owner-towertalk@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Jonathan Kaplan
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 11:19 PM
To: pugluvers@worldnet.att.net; towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] best antennas at low height above ground
.
Bottom line, the city is required to OK any height you need. So choose what
antenna you want, not what you think you can get away with.

73 and Good Luck,

Jonathan KO6XS


--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm


--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm