[TowerTalk] Here we go again

[Roger (K8RI) on TT]

Well, not quite, It's 200' Above Average Terrain (HAT) according to the 
Federal Aviation Agency.who has control over tower height.  Also Local 
ordinances can regulate for safety.  There are a number of exceptions.  
In the previous zoning, amateur towers were exempt. No permit required 
or would be given.OTOH they have made a number of mistakes in tower 
height measurement above grade rather than (HAT) as measured by the FAA 
and they do have a subgroup for amateur radio towers. However they are 
essentially treating normal ham towers to the same highly restrictive 
permitting process as commercial. 25 to 65' requires approval. Over 65' 
requires review by the entire planning commission (Expensive up to 
$1000). As the entire township is heavily populated "rural", almost all 
towers exceed 65 feet.  Mine (Grandfathered) are a 100' 45G with an 
array on top. The top antennas are at 130 feet. Well beyond the new 
setback rules. The antennas are now down for maintenance.  My LM470 Two 
antennas reaching 85' when extended is only 25 feet from the property 
line, but the adjoining property is a buffer zone.

We do plan on having ARRL counsel at the meeting.  Attached is a link to 
the proposed ordinance.  They just rezoned a few years ago.
http://homertownship.org/documents/HomerTwpZoningOrdinance2017-07hearingdraft.pdf 
Save and then do a search on Amateur Radio.

73, Roger (K8RI)

On 7/28/2017 Friday 7:39 AM, Dave Sublette wrote:
> And don’t forget, Part 97 says (in one of the most straightforward, easy to understand, and beautiful) federal regulations that amateurs are allowed to put up a 200 foot tower without lighting!  Arrl has excellent assistance packages for tower issues plus a network of volunteer lawyers to advise you.  Get them involved early.  They will be most interested, I would think.  The one thing that would modify all of this is distance from and airport boundary.
>
> Dave, K4TO
>> On Jul 28, 2017, at 6:53 AM, Ed Sawyer <sawyered at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> Roger,  From my experience in Vermont at least.  Before you get all cranked
>> up on the details, try going for the big picture.  If the rules you are
>> talking about are generic to all towers both commercial and ham towers,
>> don't go after the details, push for removing personal use structures from
>> the proposed rules.  PRB-1 gives most municpal lawyers the shakes.  Its got
>> fantastic State Supreme Court precedence and allows complete Federal
>> preemption on the hams behalf if the law is written wrong.  Many groups just
>> remove hams since its not the purpose of the ordinance and is way more
>> hassle than its worth.
>>
>>
>>
>> Vermont has a very strong "tower ordinance" but its commercial in intent and
>> ham towers have been exempted.
>>
>>
>>
>> 73
>>
>>
>>
>> Ed  NUR
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus