|
PRB-1 and CC&R's
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:28:07 EDT, Mike Coslo
wrote: The most likely failure scenarios are very true, but there is a credibility issue in these matters. We can speak of failure modes until we are blue in the face, but a simple worst case fall radius is easy for non- engineering types to understand. Yeah but... The building official is SUPPOSED to be an engineering type! -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:28:27 EDT, "Bryan"
wrote: My lot is 100' on the short side. Using that statistic, assuming I placed a tower in the center of my lot, I should be able to get a permit to erect a 333' (50' / 0.15) tower. Somehow, I don't think I have a snowball's chance in Hades of getting a permit for it. Oh well... it was a nice dream! hi Consider that if it's a guyed tower the top guy wires would have to extend out a good deal more than 50 feet from the base. Knowing what it costs to buy and erect and maintain a 333 ft tower -- common for some broadcast stations - do you have a snowball's chance in Hades to afford it? If so, can I be one of your buddies? g -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:42:17 EDT, "KH6HZ" wrote:
How about designing a series of towers that look externally like tree-trunks? Or, developing camoflauge that hams wrap on the outside of their towers which disguise them (the towers, not the hams) as big oak trees? Then, likewise, we can design a series of multi-element beam antennas which look like tree branches, complete with fake leaves! Having dealt with the (in)efficiency of such cell-site "stealth" antennas, I wouldn't touch them for ham radio purposes with a ten foot pole! -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
|
PRB-1 and CC&R's
Phil Kane wrote:
Bryan wrote: My lot is 100' on the short side. Using that statistic, assuming I placed a tower in the center of my lot, I should be able to get a permit to erect a 333' (50' / 0.15) tower. Somehow, I don't think I have a snowball's chance in Hades of getting a permit for it. Oh well... it was a nice dream! hi Consider that if it's a guyed tower the top guy wires would have to extend out a good deal more than 50 feet from the base. Knowing what it costs to buy and erect and maintain a 333 ft tower -- common for some broadcast stations - do you have a snowball's chance in Hades to afford it? If so, can I be one of your buddies? g -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net Touché... one wisecrack deserves another! ;^) 73, Bryan WA7PRC |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
Phil Kane wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:28:07 EDT, Mike Coslo wrote: The most likely failure scenarios are very true, but there is a credibility issue in these matters. We can speak of failure modes until we are blue in the face, but a simple worst case fall radius is easy for non- engineering types to understand. Yeah but... The building official is SUPPOSED to be an engineering type! Supposed to be are the keywords I think, Phil. We always hope the officials have their jobs through competence. I think it's also important to get along with the neighbors, so I would want to convince them of likely safety too. In our case, our one set of neighbors would probably understand, but the others might be a hard sell. All very nice folks, but the one couple has a technical background. We live in an age where a lot of people get their physics education from Bugs Bunny and Road Runner cartoons. It takes a lot to educate them in how things actually work - especially when their misconceptions are so much more entertaining! ;^) - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
"Phil Kane" wrote in message
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:43:55 EDT, wrote: People tend to be more afraid of the unknown. Cars are known. If I put up a 70 foot tower (the maximum level below which local authorities cannot regulate in Oregon) it and I will certainly become known to my neighbors!! 70ft and they can't regulate..?! Wow, things are certainly different your side of the water..! Here in the UK it varies depending on where in the country you are, but where I live we need planning permission from the local authority for anything that raises its head above roof level..! Although there is retrospective permission for anything that has been in place for some time (I believe 5 years but I'm not certain) without complaints. Certainly I've never had any issues about my small VHF/UHF colinear at around 25ft..! 73 Ivor G6URP |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
Phil Kane wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:42:17 EDT, "KH6HZ" wrote: How about designing a series of towers that look externally like tree-trunks? Or, developing camoflauge that hams wrap on the outside of their towers which disguise them (the towers, not the hams) as big oak trees? Then, likewise, we can design a series of multi-element beam antennas which look like tree branches, complete with fake leaves! Having dealt with the (in)efficiency of such cell-site "stealth" antennas, I wouldn't touch them for ham radio purposes with a ten foot pole! There's a cellular tower in Bainbridge, NY, I think, visible from along I88 which was objected to until some wise guy (who it was or on which side of the equation was, I don't know) suggested constructing the tower so that it looked like a fir tree. Ok, you say, that's a reasonable compromise -- except they constructed it as a *huge* "pine tree" -- overtowering (if you'll pardon the pun) every other pine tree for a hundred miles around. I don't think they're likely to do that again! Joe, W2RBA |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
In article ,
Phil Kane wrote: Yeah but... The building official is SUPPOSED to be an engineering type! -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane I'll give you an example of how it works in the REAL World..... We, (Local Residents) wanted to have the Borough (County) build a small bridge across a 30 ft wide creek, so that we could connect two seperate Road Systems, locally. There was a bridge in this location, built by the Army Corps of Engineers in WWII, that had decayed, and collapsed 30 years ago, but the abuttments were still in good shape. The Required Permits to install the new Bridge were all in place, EXCEPT for the Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game's Habitat Division, which needed to pass on the permit, because the creek was a Salmon Spawning System. Now you have to undestand that this is a nothing project, ($60KUS) on a nothing creek, (There are literally thousands of similar Creeks in our neighborhood - Neighborhood = 100 Square Miles) in the middle of NoWhere, Alaska. Habitat Division was staffed by "Greenie" Fish Biologists with absolutly NO Knowledge of Civil Engineer, and little pracatical experience outside the Degreed University Program they came from. It took us Three (3) Years of "Blood, Sweat, and Tears" to get the last signoff, and it finally took the President of the Alaska Senate, to hold up the Budget for ADF&G in Committee, untill they were within 24 Hours of having to send everyone home, because they couldn't Pay them. The first Official Act of the, then New Governer, Frank Merkowski, 15 minutes after he was sworn in, was to eliminate the ADF&G Habitat Division, fire ALL the Biologists, and transfer the Permitting to the Depatment of Natural Resources. Two weeks later there was an Ad in the Help Wanted of all the Alaskan Papers looking for Civil Engineers with PE Stamps, and Fish Habitat Experience, to work for Alaska's DNR. They hired three, in short order, and the backlog of 8 years of Permit Applications (500+) were dealt with in then next 9 months. During the previous 8 Years only 12 permits were issued. Bruce in alaska -- add a 2 before @ |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:15:40 EDT, "Ivor Jones"
wrote: If I put up a 70 foot tower (the maximum level below which local authorities cannot regulate in Oregon) it and I will certainly become known to my neighbors!! 70ft and they can't regulate..?! Wow, things are certainly different your side of the water..! Here in the UK it varies depending on where in the country you are, As it does here. The Federal requirement is "reasonable accommodation by the least restrictive means" for heights suitable to conduct the desired communication. In addition to the Federal standard, the various states have also enacted nearly-identical statutes (local authorities and courts are much more comfortable dealing with state or local requirements as compared to the exact same thing imposed by the "Great White Father in Washington"! g Oregon is only one of two (I believe) states whose statutes specify a height up to which "reasonable accommodation" is presumed by operation of law. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane ARRL Volunteer Counsel email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com