[TowerTalk] Crossing Property Lines

Wed Sep 18 12:27:10 EDT 2013

On 9/18/2013 8:36 AM, w5gn at mxg.com wrote:
> "Couldn't you just re-deed re-record the two lots into one?"
>
> We had discussed that "option" but it's not possible, for
> several reasons, but especially in Dallas where most of
> the housing is late-20th century in developments of a
> fixed lot size; the planners don't want a "three lot
> mega home" to alter the nature of those neighborhoods
>
> Additionally, there were other planning issues as to
> what constitutes a "single home"; we would have had
> to physically connect the two houses, and not just
> with a covered walk way - it would have had been
> an interior sealed connection which would have made
> it real fun with the air conditioning and heating systems
> competing.  And I think there was also an issue with
> two kitchens, since that would constitute a rentable
> apartment on the property, also not allowed.

Strange, When I built my shop, I couldn't add a "rest room", or even 
running water, or they'd consider it a 2nd habitable building which 
isn't allowed. Course, If I had a rest room and water, I could add a hot 
plate for coffee and probably spend so much time out here my wife would 
have to come out to check on me occasionally <:-)) Yet other than set 
back rules (for safety) and that covers the tower, not what you put on 
it. There are no other limitations on ham antennas.  IE, you cam put up 
a tower to meet the setback and add a 30 foot mast on top.  They don't 
even require/issue building permits for ham towers,

If they ever rezone be sure to get involved particularly with anything 
that deals with amateur radio.

73

Roger (K8RI)

>
> 73
>
> Barry, EI/W5GN
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drax Felton [mailto:draxfelton at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 6:39 AM
> To: <w5gn at mxg.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Crossing Property Lines
>
> Couldn't you just re-deed re-record the two lots into one?
>
>
>
> On Sep 18, 2013, at 4:56 AM, <w5gn at mxg.com> wrote:
>
>> In Dallas, I was cited because my antennas not only exceeded the
>> setback, (the tower was 10 feet from the property line), but both the
>> OB16-3 and CalAV 2El 40 elements extended many feet over the adjacent
>> property line
>>
>>      IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT BOTH PROPERTIES ARE OURS!!!
>>
>> pics at   http://www.mxg.com  lower left corner.
>>
>> A passerby had called the city to ask how close an antenna could be to
>> a neighbor's property which led to an inspector visit, but no
>> complaint had ever been made.
>>
>> The sole neighbor whose view of the antenna wasn't blocked by trees
>> (at least when it was down) came and testified on our behalf, and the
>> planning committee initially voted to waive the restriction, but the
>> City Attorney informed the committee that they did not have the power
>> to approve crossing property lines, that only a state court or
>> legislature act could make that decision, and directed them to
>> rejected the approval.
>>
>> I did point out that the tower and antenna were temporary as they had
>> been dropped into place with a crane (60 ton, 160 foot boom, $700!)
>> and bolted in place, and could be removed as easily, and so I really
>> only needed temporary approval, and as I plan to make it to 100, that
>> was only 35 years of temporary approval that I'd need.
>>
>> After the meeting I discussed the appeal process with the City
>> Attorney, who agreed that PRB-1 would likely prevail, but it would
>> have to go to state court, costing the city, and privately indicated
>> that if I did nothing, it's likely the City would to do nothing in the
>> absence of an actual complaint.
>>
>> That was 2006 and it's still there, but now always retracted with the
>> top antenna at 50 feet, primarily, after I calculated the wind load
>> capacity of the (overloaded) tower when extended to be about 25mph,
>> but also where it is less visible, and still quite effective.
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Barry, W5GN
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>> Charlie Gallo
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 9:03 PM
>> To: David Gilbert
>> Cc: towertalk at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Custom antenna design
>>
>>
>> On 9/17/2013 David Gilbert wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The zoning laws in many municipalities prohibit it.
>>> Dave   AB7E
>> EXACTLY in this case.  When I put up the existing Antennas (as a
>> right), someone called the zoning Dept, who actually sent out an
>> investigator, twice (I had to explain to him that NYC HAS no rules for
>> a ham antenna, just commercial, roof loading, access, and there is a
>> MAX height above roof, but one thing he was REAL clear on was I went
>> one inch over the property line, and I was going to have to take it
>> down, and he sat there with a transit on the line and LOOKED as he
>> made me rotate the antenna, and I was clear by a bit over a foot.  He
>> was fine with that, and the complaint was dismissed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> --
>> Charlie
>> www.baysidephoto.com
>> www.thegallos.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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