[TowerTalk] Fwd: Advice on tower restrictions possible new install

Patrick Greenlee patrick_g at windstream.net
Tue Feb 7 14:42:35 EST 2017 

Matt, thanks very much on the height correction.  It is still unlikely I 
will reach or exceed 150'.

I turned down a free tower last year.  It was an abandoned cell site 
with 160 ft tower.  Too difficult to take down, transport and re-errect. 
Maybe 20 years ago I would have given it a whorl.

Patrick        Nj5G


On 2/7/2017 1:21 PM, Matt wrote:
> New regs are 150' before lighting is necessary by the way.
>
> 70/7460-1L replaced 70/7460-1K
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Patrick Greenlee 
> <patrick_g at windstream.net <mailto:patrick_g at windstream.net>> wrote:
>
>     Hans, you forgot to mention mind control by talking to them via
>     the electrical outlets. What a PITA you had to suffer over
>     something really so simple.  Boy am I glad the FAA regs are my
>     only impediment and I have no plans for going 200 ft tall so no
>     worries.  My greatest single concern is someone ignoring all the
>     no trespassing signs, barbed wire fences, signs at the tower bases
>     warning of danger, prohibiting climbing and so forth and getting
>     hurt.  Towers are called attractive nuisances as are swimming pools.
>
>     The*attractive nuisance*doctrine applies to the law of torts, in
>     the United States. It states that a landowner may be held liable
>     for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is
>     caused by an object on the land that is likely to attract children.
>
>     Patrick NJ5G
>
>
>
>     On 2/7/2017 12:15 PM, Hans Hammarquist via TowerTalk wrote:
>
>         My town (in Vermont) has 40 feet as the local hight
>         restriction and accept an other 12 feet "sticking up" above
>         present structure. The zoning board was not against me putting
>         up an 85 foot tower but required a hearing as I needed a
>         variance. My problem was the neighbor that didn't want "the
>         horizon of nature be disturbed by technology. Due to an
>         administrative mess-up the hearing got delayed for a year.
>         When I finally got my permit it was autumn and I had to wait
>         for the spring to get my tower up. I missed the peak of the
>         solar spot cycle. Well, more will come.
>
>         ARRL was able get me in touch with an attorney that help me
>         for free. He was very helpful. There are also several court
>         cases available on line. The favorite is a case from Florida
>         where the judge ordered the town to pay for the ham's legal
>         fee (~$18.000). I had that case with a few other in my
>         application to "soften up" the zoning board. It is always good
>         to indicate that they may up getting additional expenses if
>         they decide to "fight". Most towns don't like extra expenses.
>
>         A fun note: My neighbor tried to stop the permit by claiming I
>         was going to use it "to eavesdrop on telephone conversations"
>         as my son had demonstrated for them how he was able to listen
>         to a phone conversation "from northern Vermont" which is about
>         130 miles from our house located on the southern tip of
>         Vermont. They also highlighted the possibility of "radioactive
>         radiation" from the tower. Don't you love these people?
>
>         Hans - N2JFS
>
>
>         -----Original Message-----
>         From: Ed Sawyer <sawyered at earthlink.net
>         <mailto:sawyered at earthlink.net>>
>         To: towertalk <towertalk at contesting.com
>         <mailto:towertalk at contesting.com>>
>         Sent: Tue, Feb 7, 2017 1:31 am
>         Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Advice on tower restrictions possible
>         new install
>
>
>         K6OK stated -
>
>         "Wouldn't you want the opposite? If a county has a blanket height
>
>         restriction on all types of structures, and that height limit is
>
>         lower than my planned towers, then I would avoid that county
>
>         unless it had a ham tower exemption. If a county has cell phone
>
>         tower regulations (which are common), I would avoid that county
>
>         unless they exempt ham towers from those rules.
>
>
>
>         But if you can't change counties, having these restrictions is not
>
>         necessarily a deal-killer. You might have to apply for a use
>         permit
>
>         or a variance, requiring more time, money and anguish.
>
>         Unfortunately there's no guarantee they will approve your
>         application."
>
>
>
>         I am not a lawyer certainly. K1VR and the ARRL support
>         services are a good
>         way to get proper advice. That
>
>         Being said, you never want to ask for a "variance" against a
>         law that
>         doesn't apply to you. You want to state
>
>         That your request is not restricted by the current
>         regulations. Its NOT a
>         commercial permit for a tower, its
>
>         A personal use auxiliary structure. So any clerk telling you
>         otherwise
>         should not prevent you from doing what you
>
>         Want to do.
>
>
>
>         Its also a protected use under Federal Pre-emption - PRB-1.
>         The fact that
>         the state or county/city/town has not
>
>         Enacted language in their law to accommodate the pre-emption,
>         should not
>         dissuade you from exercising your federally granted rights.
>
>
>
>         I think the question is to decide what the response is after
>         sizing up the
>         situation. Has the state enacted PRB1 language? If so, what
>         does it say
>         about your plans and what are you up against. Do the local
>         regulations
>         mention the case of personal antenna supports or not.
>
>
>
>         Certain local groups are up for a fight and certain ones don't
>         want a legal
>         battle especially if no neighbor is complaining. Here in rural
>         Vermont -
>         they were "thankful" for the guidance and glad to hear they
>         weren't going to
>         be 200 ft tall.
>
>
>
>         Note that none of the above deals with HOAs which is a horse
>         of a different
>         color.
>
>
>
>         Ed N1UR
>
>
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         TowerTalk mailing list
>         TowerTalk at contesting.com <mailto:TowerTalk at contesting.com>
>         http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>         <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk>
>         _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         TowerTalk mailing list
>         TowerTalk at contesting.com <mailto:TowerTalk at contesting.com>
>         http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>         <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk>
>
>
>         -----
>         No virus found in this message.
>         Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
>         Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/13907 - Release
>         Date: 02/07/17
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     TowerTalk mailing list
>     TowerTalk at contesting.com <mailto:TowerTalk at contesting.com>
>     http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>     <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk>
>
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature>
> Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/13907 - Release Date: 02/07/17
>

More information about the TowerTalk mailing list