[HCRA] Re: [viennawireless] Digest Number 512

[Rick Lindquist, N1RL]

Maryland has not enacted a "PRB-1" statute (which, in essence, would
enact the essence of the federal PRB-1 policy as a state statute).
Massachusetts has enacted such a bill. Maryland still has to recognize
it, but the value of having states adopt such bills that mirror the
federal policy is that local lawmakers are more amenable to dealing with
their own state's laws than the federal government's. Some states, like
Virginia and Alaska, also have enacted bills that incorporate minimum
regulatory heights for antenna support structures, below which local
governments have far less power to impose stringent regulation, but
these bills remain the exception among the typical PRB-1 statute.

Please see
http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/antenna-restrictions.html
for much more information on the subject of antenna regulation (scroll
down for info about and a copy of PRB-1). It is incorporated into the
amateur Part 97 rules under Sec 97.15(b), so it's not just policy, it's
a regulation.

Here are the last two paragraphs of the 1984 FCC ruling:

25. Because amateur station communications are only as effective as the
antennas employed, antenna height restrictions directly affect the
effectiveness of amateur communications. Some amateur antenna
configurations require more substantial installations than others if
they are to provide the amateur operator with the communications that
he/she desires to engage in. For example, an antenna array for
International amateur communications will differ from an antenna used to
contact other amateur operators at shorter distances. We will not,
however, specify any particular height limitation below which a local
government may not regulate, nor will we suggest the precise language
that must be contained in local ordinances, such as mechanisms for
special exceptions, variances, or conditional use permits. Nevertheless,
local regulations which involve placement, screening, or height of
antennas based on health, safety, or aesthetic considerations must be
crafted to accommodate reasonably amateur communications, and to
represent the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the local
authority's legitimate purpose.6 

26. Obviously, we do not have the staff or financial resources to review
all state and local laws that affect amateur operations. We are
confident, however, that state and local governments will endeavor to
legislate in a manner that affords appropriate recognition to the
important federal interest at stake here and thereby avoid unnecessary
conflict with federal policy, as well as time-consuming and expensive
litigation in this area. Amateur operators who believe that local or
state governments have been overreaching and thereby have precluded
accomplishment of their legitimate communications goals, may, in
addition, use this document to bring our policies to the attention of
local tribunals and forums. 


73, Rick, N1RL 


-----Original Message-----
From: hcra-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:hcra-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
On Behalf Of Daniel J. Sullivan
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2004 10:22 AM
To: viennawireless at yahoogroups.com
Cc: hcra at mailman.qth.net
Subject: [HCRA] Re: [viennawireless] Digest Number 512

______________________________________________
-------Hampden County Radio Association-------
-----------e-mail list (reflector)-------------
______________________________________________
Does MD accept PRB-1 as law? They quote the Fedearl Regs but PRB-1 is a
recommendation with some weight not a law. Also, it would seem that as
long
as he stays within the engineering guidelines I wouldn't imagine they
could
do much to revoke it.

I also would like to know which ham spends $1,000,000 to install 4
towers.
We are all so damned cheap I don't think I know anyone who even spent
$100,000 to install 4 towers! Heck I know people with 100footers who
installed them for less than $500 (gotta love hamfests!)

Dan S.
KO1D
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <viennawireless at yahoogroups.com>
To: <viennawireless at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2004 6:56 AM
Subject: [viennawireless] Digest Number 512



>
> Message: 1
>    Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 16:58:41 -0400
>    From: "Pete Norloff" <yahoo at toward.com>
> Subject: FW: N3HBX
>
> This was posted to the LARG reflector:
>
> 73,
> Pete
>
>
>    Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:14:44 EDT
>    From: RWMaylott at aol.com
> Subject: More tower problems for N3HBX
>
> Poor John, N3HBX, who started the ruckus here in Loudoun some few
months
> back when he discovered the pending changes to Loudoun's zoning, gave
up
> and
> decided to stay in Maryland.  Apparently he's not out of the woods
yet.
> See
> below (this was posted on the PVRC reflector).
>
> http://www.gazette.net/200433/poolesville/news/230181-1.html
>
>
------Hampden County Radio Association-------
An ARRL Special Services Club for over 50 years
------------http://www.hcra.org------------
________________________________________________________

To unsubscribe from the list please visit:
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hcra

Address any comments to:
-Jim, KK1W  -  jmullen at rockys.com
_______________________________________________
HCRA mailing list
HCRA at mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hcra