[TowerTalk] draft letter in support of tower permit...

[David Cook]

Whoa, Nellie! I think you're missing the point George. David is not trying
to "get away" with putting up a tower, he wants to set a precident for all
of us on the Island. As members of MIRO, which is sponsored and funded by
the city, we already have credibility for our cause. What David is hoping to
do will benefit us all, yourself included if you happen to get some new
neighbors that suspect your tower doesn't meet code or neighborhood courtesy
and decide to file a complaint with the city.

My recent experience in talking with the city planner was very productive
and positive. Mr. Scandola not only knew exactly what I wanted to put up,
but was very knowledgable on the city rules. As a result, there should be no
dispute in the future about my contraption. The fact that you put your's up
and haven't had any problems is no guarrantee that David, or any of the rest
of us, can get away with it too.

73, Dave, WA0TTN

> -----Original Message-----
> From: towertalk-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of George
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 9:51 AM
> To: David Giuliani; towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] draft letter in support of tower permit...
>
>
> Put it up and don't tell them.  Advice from a Mercer Island
> tower owner
> since 1980.
>
> Geo W7LFD
>
> |-----Original Message-----
> |From: towertalk-bounces at contesting.com
> |[mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of David Giuliani
> |Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 12:48 AM
> |To: towertalk at contesting.com
> |Subject: [TowerTalk] draft letter in support of tower permit...
> |
> |
> |
> |I'd appreciate any advice on a letter I'm about to send to my local
> |authorities re applying for a building permit for my tower.  I'd
> |like to use
> |your collective experience....
> |
> |I am applying for a permit for a tower for an amateur radio
> antenna, and
> |have been discussing the situation with JS.  He suggested
> that I send you
> |some background information.
> |
> |
> |Overview
> |
> |I am an amateur radio operator, with federal license WA6PXX.
>  I am also a
> |member of the Mercer Island Radio Operators (MIRO).  MIRO's
> amateur radio
> |operators volunteer their time and equipment to supply
> |communications in any
> |possible emergency.
> |
> |My intended antenna will be used as part of the MIRO and in
> pursuit of my
> |amateur radio hobby.  An antenna well suited for my intended use and
> |location would at a height of 90'.  However, I could live with a
> |65' maximum
> |height in a compromise situation.
> |
> |The mast I'm proposing to erect is a 55' crank-up tower,
> onto which the
> |antenna would be mounted, reaching a total height of 65'.   The
> |installation
> |will comply with the manufacturer's specifications. Antenna heights
> |significantly below this would be impaired by hills and
> other structures.
> |
> |Unfortunately, the current Mercer Island ordinance limits
> such antennas to
> |35':
> |
> |		19.02.010 Single-family.  D. Building Height Limit. No
> |building shall exceed 30 feet in height above the average building
> |elevation
> |to the top of the structure except that on the downhill side
> of a sloping
> |lot the building may extend to a height of 35 feet measured
> from existing
> |grade to the top of the exterior wall facade supporting the
> roof framing,
> |rafters, trusses, etc.; provided, the roof ridge does not
> exceed 30 feet in
> |height above the average building elevation. Antennas,
> lightning rods,
> |plumbing stacks, flagpoles, electrical service leads, chimneys and
> |fireplaces and other similar appurtenances may extend to a
> maximum of five
> |feet above the height allowed for the main structure.
> |
> |I've always had good relations with the City, and wish to
> find a way to
> |accomplish my needs with minimum difficulty. I've gotten
> some advice to
> |"just do it."  However, I feel it's best to be totally open
> with the City,
> |and find a way to accommodate its needs and mine.  It is
> also better for to
> |obtain a permit to avoid any future arguments.
> |
> |To that end, I've attempted to be as careful as possible to
> |minimize impact:
> |
> |	*	The proposed location minimizes any view impact to the
> |neighbors.
> |
> |	*	The choice of a flag pole style tower gives a
> more pleasing
> |appearance than a triangular tower structure.
> |
> |	*	The tower being proposed is a crank-up.  In its minimum
> |height position the top of the antenna will remain below
> 35'.  I will keep
> |the antenna below 35' during extensive periods of non-use.
> Thus, one can
> |expect that on the average, it will be below 35'.
> |
> |JS appreciated these points, but was still concerned that the
> |maximum height
> |would reach beyond 35' while in use.
> |
> |
> |Federal and State Law on Amateur Radio Antennas
> |
> |I mentioned to JS that there are federal and Washington
> state laws on this
> |topic.  He suggested that I bring these to your attention.
> |
> |The Federal government issued a law in 1985 called PRB-1, requiring
> |reasonable accommodation of amateur radio antennas (text
> attached).  Our
> |state enacted in 1994 its own law reinforcing PRB-1:
> |
> |		RCW 35A.21.260.  Amateur radio antennas --
> Local regulation
> |to conform with federal law.  No city shall enact or enforce an
> |ordinance or
> |regulation that fails to conform to the limited preemption
> |entitled "Amateur
> |Radio Preemption, 101 FCC 2nd 952 (1985)" issued by the federal
> |communications commission. An ordinance or regulation adopted by a
> |code city
> |with respect to amateur radio antennas shall conform to the
> limited federal
> |preemption, that states local regulations that involve placement,
> |screening,
> |or height of antennas based on health, safety, or aesthetic
> considerations
> |must be crafted to reasonably accommodate amateur
> communications, and to
> |represent the minimal practicable regulation to accomplish the local
> |authority's legitimate purpose.
> |
> |Other municipalities have adjusted their laws accordingly.  A
> |common outcome
> |is to allow antennas of 65'-70' height as a reasonable
> accommodation.  Case
> |law indicates that height restrictions such as Mercer
> Island's are not
> |reasonable accommodations.
> |
> |
> |Possible Solutions
> |
> |I believe it is in Mercer Island's best interests to
> accommodate amateur
> |radio installations, especially for those involved in MIRO.
> My equipment,
> |for example, operates on back up battery power, and hence
> can be used in
> |major emergencies.  During the east coast power grid failure
> a couple of
> |weeks ago, cell phones were useless, and ham radio operators supplied
> |significant support, as they have in other emergencies.  Living on an
> |island, it's important to be especially well prepared.
> |
> |I see a couple of possible solutions which effectively
> balance the issues:
> |
> |*	Interpret the 35' rule to apply to fixed structures rather than
> |crank-up towers.  The visual impact is certainly reduced by
> the occasional
> |use.
> |
> |*	Modify the ordinance to explicitly exclude amateur radio towers,
> |placing either no height limit on them, or one which is more
> realistic for
> |amateur radio use, such as 65'-70'.  It is reasonable to expect such
> |installations to comply with the manufacturer's recommendations.
> |
> |I am anxious to resolve this situation rapidly and
> inexpensively.  We are
> |currently constructing our new house, and it will be far
> more economical to
> |do pour the foundation at the same time as one of the other pours.
> |
> |
> |
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> See: http://www.mscomputer.com  for "Self Supporting Towers",
> "Wireless Weather Stations", and lot's more.  Call Toll Free,
> 1-800-333-9041 with any questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk