[TowerTalk] Amateur Radio Tower Ordinances

[Steve Jones]

I initially had this problem in San Mateo County, near SF.  The Planning Dept. wanted to issue me a "conditional use permit" which would need to be renewed every year.  I explained this is not a tower for commercial use such as a cell tower.  They backed off and gave me a permit, only after I completed an environmental review check list and came up with a design to prevent the new 36 square feet of impermeable surface (the concrete foundation) from disrupting the flow of water on the hillside.  But they never created a new ordinance for radio towers for personal use.
73,
Steve
N6SJ



-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk <towertalk-bounces at contesting.com> On Behalf Of Wes Stewart via TowerTalk
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2023 3:35 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com; Bob K6ZZ <bob.selbrede at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Amateur Radio Tower Ordinances

 Why do you need an ordinance?
Wes  N7WS

    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 04:00:09 PM MST, Bob K6ZZ <bob.selbrede at gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 Are there any good examples out there that a municipality could adopt/copy to create a reasonable ordnance for Ham Radio towers? My new QTH doesn’t have anything specific for Ham Radio but they do for commercial towers and Public Communications Services (PCS) towers. PCS is something specific in FCC parlance and shouldn’t be applied to Amateur Radio IMHO. I’m hoping to talk them into creating a simple reasonable ordinance based on successful application elsewhere.

Thanks, Bob K6ZZ
Sent from my iPhone
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
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