[TowerTalk] TowerTalk Digest, Vol 251, Issue 14

Thu Nov 23 10:17:32 EST 2023

 Try Palm Beach Co.,FL they have a pretty generous set of criteria allowing up to 4 towers, when on the appropriate sized property so that the half height will fall within the property.  I think the height maybe limited to 100ft.  There is a 'permitting' and engineering data requirement.
Norm W4QN
    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:27:03 AM EST, towertalk-request at contesting.com <towertalk-request at contesting.com> wrote:  

 Send TowerTalk mailing list submissions to
    towertalk at contesting.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    towertalk-request at contesting.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
    towertalk-owner at contesting.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of TowerTalk digest..."

Today's Topics:

  1. Re: Amateur Radio Tower Ordinances (JOHN OWENS)
  2. Re: Amateur Radio Tower Ordinances (Steve Muenich)
  3. Re: Amateur Radio Tower Ordinances (Bob K6ZZ)
  4. Re: Amateur Radio Tower Ordinances Digest, Vol 251, Issue 13
      (Steve Davis | Davis RF)
  5. Re: Amateur Radio Tower Ordinances (Jim W7RY)
  6. Re: attic insulation (Tom Hellem)
  7. Re: Amateur Radio Tower Ordinances (JVarney)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:00:33 -0800 (PST)
From: JOHN OWENS <ham38john at comcast.net>
To: Bob K6ZZ <bob.selbrede at gmail.com>, towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Amateur Radio Tower Ordinances
Message-ID: <740094590.280087.1700697633490 at connect.xfinity.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

If they do not have a specific requirement for ham radio towers, then it sounds like you do not have a requirement. Federal Regulation PRB-1 requires that municipalities provide reasonable accomodation to the installation of ham radio towers. I would not try to talk them into any thing. If you are a member of the ARRL, contact them. They deal with this issue on a daily basis and know the laws. John Owens -  N7TK

> On 11/22/2023 2:59 PM PST 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

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 18:16:41 -0600
From: Steve Muenich <srmuenich at gmail.com>
To: JOHN OWENS <ham38john at comcast.net>
Cc: Bob K6ZZ <bob.selbrede at gmail.com>, towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Amateur Radio Tower Ordinances
Message-ID: <56870ADD-653E-4F30-B808-D1A68EE041CC at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

If it ain?t broke, Don?t fix it.  

Steve, NA5C

Sent from my mobile device

> On Nov 22, 2023, at 6:03?PM, JOHN OWENS <ham38john at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> ?If they do not have a specific requirement for ham radio towers, then it sounds like you do not have a requirement. Federal Regulation PRB-1 requires that municipalities provide reasonable accomodation to the installation of ham radio towers. I would not try to talk them into any thing. If you are a member of the ARRL, contact them. They deal with this issue on a daily basis and know the laws. John Owens -  N7TK
> 
> 
>> On 11/22/2023 2:59 PM PST 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

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 19:36:56 -0500
From: Bob K6ZZ <bob.selbrede at gmail.com>
To: Jack Brindle <jackbrindle at me.com>
Cc: TowerTalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Amateur Radio Tower Ordinances
Message-ID: <0B5D0DCF-0736-49A8-9B03-F8F10DAD7C76 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

?Hi Jack,

I?m in the process of moving from CA to KY. I?m aware of PRB-1 and will certainly bring it up if needed.

I?ve got a meeting with the county building department director on Tuesday afternoon. My hope is that he?ll agree that their PCS tower ordinance does not apply to Amateur Radio. If so I should be good to go. If he insists that it applies to Ham Radio towers I?ll have some work to do. 

As I said earlier, I?m not going to do a thing if they tell me I?m good to go. Wouldn?t make sense.

Thanks for the replies.

Bob

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 22, 2023, at 6:53 PM, Jack Brindle <jackbrindle at me.com> wrote:
> ?You are in California. There is a state law that requires local governments to treat you quite reasonably. They cannot apply the PCS and commercial ordinances to ham radio antenna systems.
> It is easy to look up the CA law on the internet. You might want to bring a copy with you to meet with the planning people.
> 
> By the way, the City of Campbell, in the Bay area, has no ordinance covering ham towers. They are quite happy not to have one, in fact. We tend to be excellent citizens.
> 
> 73,
> Jack, W6FB
> Now in Louisiana, which also has a state version of the FCC PRB1 regulation.
> 
> 
>> On Nov 22, 2023, at 5:38?PM, Bob K6ZZ <bob.selbrede at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I would only suggest a more reasonable ordinance if they insisted on applying the PCS ordinance to Ham Radio. If they tell me there are no applicable ordinances and give me a green light, I?m certainly not going to argue with that logic!
>> 
>> Bob
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Nov 22, 2023, at 6:32 PM, Martin A. Flynn <maflynn at theflynn.org> wrote:
>>> ?Actually it does - Do you want your 30 foot Rohn 25 tower bracketed to your house classified by the same rules as a cell / pcs  or Commercial two-way tower?
>>>> On 11/22/2023 6:22 PM, Ron WV4P wrote:
>>>> There are no rules for ham so you want them to create some ?
>>>> That makes zero sense.
>>>> Ron, WV4P
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 5:00?PM 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 01:23:36 +0000
From: Steve Davis | Davis RF <sdavis at davisrf.com>
To: "towertalk at contesting.com" <towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Amateur Radio Tower Ordinances Digest, Vol
    251, Issue 13
Message-ID:
    <BL3PR08MB72997729F702EFBEA0055A23D2B9A at BL3PR08MB7299.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Gone are the days like the 1970's when I walked into our bldg. inspector with a plot plan.  In the middle of the woods in back of my house I drew an X on the plan, and said "100 ft tower."  Bldg inspector did a quick look and said, "well, if it falls over, its all on your land."  ..no need for a permit or whatever.

 I never admitted this til now, but the guy lines were anchored to a 3/4" threaded galv  rod implanted a right angles to the guys, through some pretty hefty oak trees.  ends out each side had hardware to attach the guys to.  TH6 DX and 20 (21?  HI)  el 2m collinear on top, + slopers.  44 years later  (2016) standing strong, through many NEasterns and hurricanes in MA.

Not the way to do it, but I had a friend who did it with 3 towers, he was sort of the proving ground.

I apologize to all you engineers who are huffing/puffing now about what I did.

 Don't ask me about the base, that still will remain a secret  HI
But take a guess if you like.

 Have a Great T Day, and Thanks for all your patronage.

 Steve,  K1PEK  DAVIS RF.    DAVIS ROPE    (no the guys were per spec, not rope)

________________________________

  5. Amateur Radio Tower Ordinances (Bob K6ZZ)
  6. Re: Amateur Radio Tower Ordinances (Ron WV4P)
  7. Re: Amateur Radio Tower Ore A. Flynn)
  8. Re: Amateur Radio Tower Ordinances (Wes Stewart)
  9. Re: Amateur Radio Tower Ordinances (Bob K6ZZ)
  10. Re: Amateur Radio Tower Ordinances (Jack Brindle)
  11. Re: Amateur Radio Tower Ordinances (Steve Jones)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 17:59:44 -0500
From: Bob K6ZZ <bob.selbrede at gmail.com>
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] Amateur Radio Tower Ordinances
Message-ID: <F61D32C8-78EB-44A9-817D-FB5E6D72CD97 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

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

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 17:22:56 -0600
From: Ron WV4P <wv4ptn at gmail.com>
To: Bob K6ZZ <bob.selbrede at gmail.com>
Cc: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Amateur Radio Tower Ordinances
Message-ID:
        <CAPQMqnccdgKMqnhqzyBRTiZNWUFoqWm5WZ7aMkYk1sT1fTmArw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

There are no rules for ham so you want them to create some ?
That makes zero sense.

Ron, WV4P

On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 5:00?PM 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
>

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 18:35:09 -0500
From: "Martin A. Flynn" <maflynn at theflynn.org>
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Amateur Radio Tower Ordinances
Message-ID: <963e7c26-1bd0-4d92-a175-aa1e0b78363d at theflynn.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

Actually it does - Do you want your 30 foot Rohn 25 tower bracketed to
your house classified by the same rules as a cell / pcs? or Commercial
two-way tower?

On 11/22/2023 6:22 PM, Ron WV4P wrote:
> There are no rules for ham so you want them to create some ?
> That makes zero sense.
>
> Ron, WV4P
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 5:00?PM 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

------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 23:35:05 +0000 (UTC)
From: Wes Stewart <n7ws at yahoo.com>
To: "towertalk at contesting.com" <towertalk at contesting.com>,      Bob K6ZZ
        <bob.selbrede at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Amateur Radio Tower Ordinances
Message-ID: <789919785.3830370.1700696105436 at mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

 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

------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 18:38:45 -0500
From: Bob K6ZZ <bob.selbrede at gmail.com>
To: "Martin A. Flynn" <maflynn at theflynn.org>
Cc: TowerTalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Amateur Radio Tower Ordinances
Message-ID: <26D6AC50-D9F1-4FD1-88E3-55CDFEA5A4F4 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

I would only suggest a more reasonable ordinance if they insisted on applying the PCS ordinance to Ham Radio. If they tell me there are no applicable ordinances and give me a green light, I?m certainly not going to argue with that logic!

Bob

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 22, 2023, at 6:32 PM, Martin A. Flynn <maflynn at theflynn.org> wrote:
>
> ?Actually it does - Do you want your 30 foot Rohn 25 tower bracketed to your house classified by the same rules as a cell / pcs  or Commercial two-way tower?
>
>> On 11/22/2023 6:22 PM, Ron WV4P wrote:
>> There are no rules for ham so you want them to create some ?
>> That makes zero sense.
>>
>> Ron, WV4P
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 5:00?PM 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 17:53:19 -0600
From: Jack Brindle <jackbrindle at me.com>
To: TowerTalk at contesting.com
Cc: Bob K6ZZ <bob.selbrede at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Amateur Radio Tower Ordinances
Message-ID: <13A00645-D793-480D-84BE-0B09C8729163 at me.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;      charset=utf-8

You are in California. There is a state law that requires local governments to treat you quite reasonably. They cannot apply the PCS and commercial ordinances to ham radio antenna systems.
It is easy to look up the CA law on the internet. You might want to bring a copy with you to meet with the planning people.

By the way, the City of Campbell, in the Bay area, has no ordinance covering ham towers. They are quite happy not to have one, in fact. We tend to be excellent citizens.

73,
Jack, W6FB
Now in Louisiana, which also has a state version of the FCC PRB1 regulation.

> On Nov 22, 2023, at 5:38?PM, Bob K6ZZ <bob.selbrede at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I would only suggest a more reasonable ordinance if they insisted on applying the PCS ordinance to Ham Radio. If they tell me there are no applicable ordinances and give me a green light, I?m certainly not going to argue with that logic!
>
> Bob
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Nov 22, 2023, at 6:32 PM, Martin A. Flynn <maflynn at theflynn.org> wrote:
>>
>> ?Actually it does - Do you want your 30 foot Rohn 25 tower bracketed to your house classified by the same rules as a cell / pcs  or Commercial two-way tower?
>>
>>> On 11/22/2023 6:22 PM, Ron WV4P wrote:
>>> There are no rules for ham so you want them to create some ?
>>> That makes zero sense.
>>>
>>> Ron, WV4P
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 5:00?PM 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

------------------------------

Message: 11
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 15:57:32 -0800
From: "Steve Jones" <n6sj at earthlink.net>
To: "'Wes Stewart'" <n7ws at yahoo.com>, <towertalk at contesting.com>,
        "'Bob K6ZZ'" <bob.selbrede at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Amateur Radio Tower Ordinances
Message-ID: <001201da1d9f$a9eae4c0$fdc0ae40$@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;      charset="UTF-8"

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

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

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

------------------------------

End of TowerTalk Digest, Vol 251, Issue 13
******************************************

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 20:16:58 -0600
From: Jim W7RY <jimw7ry at gmail.com>
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Amateur Radio Tower Ordinances
Message-ID: <b78137c5-e319-4c03-9dc6-c3ea88e918d0 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

 From the City of Ozark Missouri:

https://ecode360.com/28909976?highlight=tower,towers&searchId=9695514651952489

/Exemptions./An antenna andtowerfor the following uses are *exempt from 
these requirements* and are permitted uses in any district if accessory 
to a permitted use and if they comply with the applicable regulations of 
the district in which situated:
*a. <https://ecode360.com/28910017#28910017>*
*Ham radios.*
*b. <https://ecode360.com/28910018#28910018>*
*Citizen band radios.*

*Pretty simple!

73, Jim W7RY

*

On 11/22/2023 6:36 PM, Bob K6ZZ wrote:
> ?Hi Jack,
>
> I?m in the process of moving from CA to KY. I?m aware of PRB-1 and will certainly bring it up if needed.
>
> I?ve got a meeting with the county building department director on Tuesday afternoon. My hope is that he?ll agree that their PCS tower ordinance does not apply to Amateur Radio. If so I should be good to go. If he insists that it applies to Ham Radio towers I?ll have some work to do.
>
> As I said earlier, I?m not going to do a thing if they tell me I?m good to go. Wouldn?t make sense.
>
> Thanks for the replies.
>
> Bob
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Nov 22, 2023, at 6:53 PM, Jack Brindle<jackbrindle at me.com>  wrote:
>> ?You are in California. There is a state law that requires local governments to treat you quite reasonably. They cannot apply the PCS and commercial ordinances to ham radio antenna systems.
>> It is easy to look up the CA law on the internet. You might want to bring a copy with you to meet with the planning people.
>>
>> By the way, the City of Campbell, in the Bay area, has no ordinance covering ham towers. They are quite happy not to have one, in fact. We tend to be excellent citizens.
>>
>> 73,
>> Jack, W6FB
>> Now in Louisiana, which also has a state version of the FCC PRB1 regulation.
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 22, 2023, at 5:38?PM, Bob K6ZZ<bob.selbrede at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> I would only suggest a more reasonable ordinance if they insisted on applying the PCS ordinance to Ham Radio. If they tell me there are no applicable ordinances and give me a green light, I?m certainly not going to argue with that logic!
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>> On Nov 22, 2023, at 6:32 PM, Martin A. Flynn<maflynn at theflynn.org>  wrote:
>>>> ?Actually it does - Do you want your 30 foot Rohn 25 tower bracketed to your house classified by the same rules as a cell / pcs  or Commercial two-way tower?
>>>>> On 11/22/2023 6:22 PM, Ron WV4P wrote:
>>>>> There are no rules for ham so you want them to create some ?
>>>>> That makes zero sense.
>>>>> Ron, WV4P
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 5:00?PM 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
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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

-- 
Thanks and 73, Jim W7RY

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 22:14:01 -0700
From: Tom Hellem <tom.hellem at gmail.com>
To: JP K <jp at ezoom.net>
Cc: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] attic insulation
Message-ID: <76150881-C2D6-462D-92E0-59658B0262CD at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

I concur on the Spam. It?s either that, or Scam.

Tom  K0SN

> On Nov 22, 2023, at 3:11 PM, JP K <jp at ezoom.net> wrote:
> 
> ?This smells like spam. 
> 
> Change my mind. 
> 
> W2XX/7
> 
>> On Nov 22, 2023, at 12:31?PM, bigted23 via TowerTalk <towertalk at contesting.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi there to all of you.
>> 
>> While looking into attic insulation alternatives, I came across an article that provided advice on selecting the best insulation for homes. The importance of R-values?a metric that gauges how well insulation withstands temperature fluctuations?is mentioned. It retains heat better with a greater R-value; nonetheless, the decision should be appropriate for the climate.
>> 
>> I'm debating between spray foam, fiberglass, and cellulose insulation. The article talks about how polyurethane foam costs more money even if it has a greater R-value.
>> 
>> Each type of insulation has a different installation process. Certain materials, like plastic foam and loose-fill, are easy to do yourself, but others require expert handling.
>> 
>> It appears sensible to consult professionals before beginning this undertaking. Cost estimates and material recommendations could be provided by certified energy experts (CEA).
>> 
>> In the end, the budget is quite important. While batt-and-blanket insulation is less expensive, other varieties come with greater advantages.
>> 
>> I would highly appreciate hearing from anyone with knowledge or expertise with these insulating materials, particularly with regard to how well they keep heat in cooler regions like Nanaimo.
>> Usedhttps://houseinsulationhub.weebly.com/for some info.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 21:26:36 -0800
From: JVarney <jvarn359 at gmail.com>
To: "[TowerTalk]" <towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Amateur Radio Tower Ordinances
Message-ID:
    <CANx7EtbfJtV0MchD0qPjZLzfDrcfFhAUq5c82P3pZvDWxC_4pg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Bob -- You are on the right track. It's a creeping
problem where local agencies here in Calif have
adopted extensive "wireless facility" ordinances
requiring hearings, reports, and expensive fees
and the trend is for them to lump ham towers in
with them.

An ordinance I like is from the City of Tracy, CA.
In their zoning code under Telecom Facilities:

-- they differentiate between wireless facilities
and "important amateur radio installations."

-- they classify tower projects as exempt, minor
and major.  Under 'Exempt Facilities' they include
ham radio with up to two antennas on a tower of
up to 70 feet.

-- Exempt Facilities are exempt from planning review
and may be installed with only a building permit.

If the ham wants more than two antennas or to
go higher than 70 feet he can, but it's not exempt,
and would require planning approval.

I think this ordinance is quite reasonable.

73 Jim K6OK

p.s. -- Your city should also be made aware of
Calif state law Gov Code 65850.3 that says
local agencies shall allow ham towers with the
least amount of regulation possible.

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

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

------------------------------

End of TowerTalk Digest, Vol 251, Issue 14
******************************************