[TowerTalk] [RE] Tower Lawsuit

[Wayne Kline]

WOW that's  seems like a win for the Ham community   But there that one word that frightens me  Radio operators to heights of 90 feet or lower unless the restriction is necessary to
16 achieve a clearly defined health, safety, or aesthetic objective of the city." That being  "Aesthetic"  To me  antenna installations are for the most part a Thing of Beauty.  But to others there ugly as Sin. YMMV Wayne W3EA 
 > Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 11:35:03 -0500
> From: w3yni1 at gmail.com
> To: mainhart at triad.rr.com
> CC: draxfelton at gmail.com; towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] [RE] Tower Lawsuit
> 
> This does little good in this case however.  He's up against CC&R's which
> are private land use agreements and not pre-empted but this or the Federal
> PRB-1 statute.
> 
> There's only a few of these that are pre-empted which is thing covered
> under OTARDS, restrictions on selling due to the race of the buyer, etc.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Rick Mainhart <mainhart at triad.rr.com>wrote:
> 
> > Drax,
> >
> > You may wish to take a look at the following:
> >
> >
> > http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2007/Bills/House/PDF/H1340v0.pdf
> >
> >
> > A friend of mine recently convinced the city of High Point that their
> > 70' restriction was violating state law, and they agreed to follow the
> > state law. I believe "reasonable accommodation" may apply here.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Rick
> > NM3G
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TowerTalk mailing list
> > TowerTalk at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk