[DCART] Tower Issues to Be Heard

[Dick Flanagan]

From: "K5RC" <tom at k5rc.cc>
Subject: Tower Issues to Be Heard
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 08:18:02 -0800

Please post on club groups in the area. The 
neighbors are recruiting a lynch mob so we are 
now looking for support in numbers. I do need to 
hear from anyone who plans to attend either by 
email or telephone. It is important that we all 
are singing from the same hymn book.

Tom Taormina, K5RC
The Comstock Memorial Station, W7RN
Virginia City NV
http://k5rc.cc
775-847-7929

As many of you know, I have been fighting a 2 ½ 
year battle over my towers that has been (and 
still is) in the Federal Court system. The 
Federal judge has established guidelines for us 
and the County to achieve an amicable outcome and 
we have filed for a Special Use Permit to get 
back our building permit for two new towers and 
to gain sanctions for the existing towers. The 
permit application will be heard on March 3 at 
the monthly meeting of the Storey County Planning 
Commission. The agendas are included.

<http://www.storeycounty.org/Planning/Agendas/AGENDA_110303_Tour.pdf>http://www.storeycounty.org/Planning/Agendas/AGENDA_110303_Tour.pdf

http://www.storeycounty.org/Planning/Agendas/AGENDA_110303.pdf

Since the meeting notice was publicized, some 
neighbors have begun a series of attacks of 
misinformation on the local internet discussion 
group. Our attorney, K1VR, has suggested that the 
only way to overcome an angry mob is by 
marshaling our own representatives in a show of 
support in numbers and in voices of calm and 
reason. We are asking that any members of the ham 
community who can attend the meeting do so and 
voice their opinions, if they are so disposed.

Below is a list of FAQ’s we have prepared with 
the salient points that we will make to the 
Commissioners. We ask only that attendees address 
the factual information and not engage in debate 
with those who may rant in emotional rhetoric.

Your help and support will be much appreciated. 
Please RSVP if you plan to attend so we can keep 
you informed with the latest documents and developments.

Tom Taormina, K5RC
Virginia City NV
775-847-7929

(Printable version available at:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VCH/files/TT-antenna_FAQ-v4.pdf>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VCH/files/TT-antenna_FAQ-v4.pdf 
)

Q - What are the towers for?

A - They are used by homeowners Tom and Midge 
Taormina for two-way communications with ham 
radio operators throughout the county, and around the world.


Q - What is ham radio?

A – It is a hobby where individuals are tested 
and licensed by the FCC to transmit radio signals 
on designated frequency bands. Most 
communications breakthroughs have been the result of ham radio experimentation.


Q – Why are they so tall?

A – Different frequencies require different 
heights for antennas to radiate efficiently. Most 
hams who live in subdivisions significantly 
compromise performance to build antennas 
appropriate to a suburban neighborhood.


Q – Aren’t they a hazard to airplanes and CareFlight?

A – No. This installation will be totally 
compliant with all FAA regulations. CareFlight 
has landed within half a mile of the towers on several occasions.


Q – Will these antennas be lighted, or have hazard painting?

A – No.  To blend in, the towers will be dull 
gray, with no lighting or hazard painting.


Q – Why are there so many?

A – Antennas for different frequencies perform 
more efficiently when they are on separate 
supports. Most hams who live in restricted 
neighborhoods make compromises.  They may not 
operate certain frequencies for which they are 
licensed, or they may suffer materially less effective communications.


Q – Do the CC&R’s permit these towers?

A – There are no prohibitions for ham radio 
towers in the CC&R’s. The HRPOA filed a letter 
with the Storey County Building Department 
confirming that these towers do not violate their CC&Rs.


Q – Does the County Codes permit these towers?

A – In 1996, before the Taorminas purchased their 
house, the Storey County Building Department 
informed them that there were no height 
restrictions in the Storey County Codes. In 1999, 
the Code was changed to include a maximum fixed 
height of 45’ above grade for such structures.


Q – Shouldn’t they be “grandfathered” in?

A – The Code provides for grandfathering of 
existing structures, but not for structures built 
after the ordinance went into effect. The 
Taorminas were not aware the Code had changed until 2008.


Q – Didn’t they have to get building permits for the towers?

A – From 1996 to 2008, The Taorminas were 
repeatedly told by the Storey County Building 
Department that they did not require building 
permits for ham radio towers. When two new 
structures of 120’ and 195’ were planned for 
erection in 2008, the Building Department asked 
them to apply for a building permit. It was 
granted. Inspections approved the base and guy anchors.


Q – What is the problem if they had building permits?

A – Some neighbors complained to the Building 
Department and County Officials. Under direction 
of former DDA Laura Grant, the Building 
Department issued a Stop-Work-Order on the new 
towers, and effectively made the order retroactive to 1997.


Q – How can the County change their minds after 
issuing a building permit and approving the concrete foundations?

A – In a series of letters back and forth between 
Taorminas’ attorneys and the DDA, there was no 
common ground on the issues of Federal Laws and 
Nevada Statutes that deal directly with how ham 
radio towers must be treated by Storey County.


Q – Why did they not just file for a Special Use Permit at that time?

A – In the various letters from the County, they 
were sometimes told that they needed a Variance, 
and other times told that they needed a Special 
Use Permit. There were conflicting directions as 
to what was nonconforming. The Federal Court has 
now determined what is required.


A – What happened next?

A – The Taorminas filed a civil action in Federal 
Court to require the County to comply with 
Federal and Nevada law which preclude setting 
firm, fixed heights. They argued that the County 
ordinance had a firm, fixed maximum height of 
45’.  Requiring two different rulings, the Judge 
finally established that a Special Use Permit may 
be issued to get around the maximum height 
problem.  The Court specified that the correct 
procedure was to file a Special Use Permit under 
one (only one) specific section of the County 
Code. After the Judge’s last ruling that spelled 
out the steps to be followed, the Taorminas then 
filed a SUP application for the existing 
structures above 45’ and for the two structures that were stopped in July 2008.


Q –What issues are before the Planning Commission?

A – The SUP asks for permission to finish the two 
towers formerly permitted, and to legalize the four existing towers over 45 ‘.


Q – What factors will influence the Commission’s recommendations?

A – The Federal Judge ruled that only Section 
17.62.010 is applicable. It reads:

“Certain uses may be permitted by the board of 
county commissioners in zones in which they are 
not permitted by this title where such uses are 
deemed essential or desirable for the public convenience or welfare.”


Q – What determines “essential or desirable?”

A – In his draft Report of 2/18/11 for the 
Planning Commission, Senior Planner Osborne writes:

“[A] ccess to the amateur radio communication 
system by key staff may prove to be beneficial 
and desirable for the public convenience and 
welfare during times of Emergency Operations 
Command and extended power or emergency communication outages.”

He set forth conditions under which the Building 
Department recommends the grant of an SUP, with Condition # 8:

“In accordance with determining that the Amateur 
Radio facility is used partly for the convenience 
and necessity of the local jurisdiction and 
community, the Permit Holder shall coordinate 
with the Storey County Emergency Management 
Departments to develop a binding agreement [to] 
enable the Amateur Radio facility and/or the 
operator (Permit Holder) to be utilized by the 
County during times of Emergency Operations 
Command and extended power and communication outages.”


Q – Is this project allowable under the County’s Master Plan?

A – In Section VII of his report, Senior Planner 
Osborne answered: “The proposal appears to comply 
with The Storey County Master Plan.”


Q – What about the visual impact on the neighborhood?

A – “Staff recommends, as demonstrated in the 
list of conditions for this special use permit, 
that a durable coating is applied to the 
additional towers that visually resembles the 
non-reflective (dull) gray finish that is seen on the existing structures.”


Q – Does the Building Department recommend approval of the SUP?

A – Yes. Section XI deals with the conditions of the recommendation.

February 22, 2011