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

Sun Sep 7 17:22:46 EDT 2003

I thought also that when making these applications, you were never supposed
to use the word 'tower' - its too emotive. Try instead 'mast', 'pole',
'antenna-support'. Has anyone else got any interesting words that would do ?

73s Tim EI8IC
www.qsl.net/ei8ic/
The home of the 'Global Overlay Mapper'.
The most comprehensive free prefix maps on the net.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Muller" <postmaster at k0tv.com>
To: "David Giuliani" <David at giuliani.org>; <towertalk at contesting.com>
Sent: 30 August 2003 10:59
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] draft letter in support of tower permit...

> David,
>
> I have a couple of comments.
>
> First, It might help if you referred to Amateur Radio as a service and not
a
> hobby. Example:
>
> "My intended antenna will be used as part of the MIRO and in pursuit of
> my.." interest in participating in the Amateur Radio Service.
>
> This change indicates that you will be a service to the community rather
> than just a "hobby".
>
> Another change is to point out that the courts have recognized the need
for
> local authorities to provide reasonable accommodation for amateur radio. A
> direct example like yours would be Pentel (US Circuit Court). Sylvia
Pentel
> was granted a permit for a crank up tower like yours in a residential
> neighborhood where similar limits existed in the Zoning Ordinance. The
> courts have since gone past that in Marchand (NH Supreme Court) in
> recognizing that the accommodation must take in account for the particular
> needs of the amateur in question. That case allowed three 90 foot towers
> where lower courts ruled that no antennas were allowed at all.
>
> Good luck and 73,
>
> Jerry, K0TV (The direct beneficiary of Marchand)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Giuliani" <David at giuliani.org>
> To: <towertalk at contesting.com>
> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 3:48 AM
> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>