[TowerTalk] Time for a Real Tower Question TX-489

[Ed Sawyer]

Its true.  But often the threat of the dialog is enough to have people who “refuse to even consider” to “consider a reasonable proposal”.

 

Ed

 

From: lemii at sbcglobal.net [mailto:lemii at sbcglobal.net] 
Sent: Sunday, December 6, 2015 12:09 PM
To: TowerTalk at contesting.com; sawyered at earthlink.net
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Time for a Real Tower Question TX-489

 

even though that is legally correct sometimes unfortunately you have to engage a lawyer to force the issue

 

Larry KA5TXL

 

Sent from Windows Mail

 

From: Ed Sawyer <mailto:sawyered at earthlink.net> 
Sent: ‎Sunday‎, ‎December‎ ‎6‎, ‎2015 ‎9‎:‎36‎ ‎AM
To: TowerTalk at contesting.com

 

No municipality can "refuse to consider" an amateur radio antenna proposal.
Nor can they incorrectly apply commercial statutes to your "auxiliary
personal use" application.  If they have added reasonable accommodation
language to their homeowner permits regulations, then of course they can
apply those. However, those cannot be punitive to ham towers beyond what the
structures around them would be expected to endure.

 

Many people build a "retractable tower" because the permanent installation
is below the common ~25ft auxiliary structure height limit and therefore get
quick permits (think flag pole permit - its legally not different in many
regulations).  Then they temporarily raise it for certain "events" and put
it back down.  Before you think that's a terrible thing, how many permits
would allow for 20 cars to permanently be at your home?  Yet, its not
violating the law to have a bunch of friends over for Sunday football games.

 

Be careful to drive the dialog rather than be driven by it.

 

Ed  N1UR 

_______________________________________________



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