[TowerTalk] [RE] Tower Lawsuit

[Mike Baker]

The last time I heard about a municipality using the "Aesthetic" issue, the
attorney took pictures of stuff around town that looks like total crap
(fences made of all manner of ugly stuff, houses painted with unimaginable
colors, horse property's, intentionally planted over stuffed front yards of
Plants?) and presented it to the judge. 
His next defense was something like this: Does anyone in this court room own
an RV, or a Boat, or maybe an old classic car?  Well, my client doesn't. His
RV, Boat and Classic Car money went to put together his Ham Radio Station;
most of which sits quietly on his desktop. The balance went into assembling
and installing a usable antenna system. How would YOU feel if your neighbors
suddenly took you to court for your RV, or Boat or Classic Car?  Should we
suddenly make ownership of a Porsche illegal?"  He also knew the judge owned
a 911 and a 928 that were almost always parked out in front of his house on
the weekends.

I believe the case was dismissed...

Mike Baker  K7DD
K7dd at cox.net
All QSO's are uploaded to LOTW and EQSL.


-----Original Message-----
From: towertalk-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Kline
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 9:50 AM
To: w3yni1 at gmail.com; mainhart at triad.rr.com
Cc: draxfelton at gmail.com; towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] [RE] Tower Lawsuit


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
 		 	   		  
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk