[MDham] FYI Montgomery County residents, tower legislation

[Comarow, Avery]

________________________________

From: mdham-bounces at mailman.qth.net on behalf of n3khk_john at verizon.net
Sent: Wed 11/23/2005 6:54 PM
To: MDham at mailman.qth.net
Subject: [MDham] FYI Montgomery County residents, tower legislation



Sorry attachments were filtered out. One more try.

FYI.

For people living in Montgomery county Maryland, new tower legislation. See
E-Mails below.

John Klim
N3KHK


Attachment 1:
        FROM:   Tyler Stewart [k3mm at verizon.net]
        SUBJECT:        [PVRC] Things just got serious for hams in
Montgomery County...re ZTA05-10 tower restrictions

<Start>
Let's try this again in plain text so it doesn't bounce....

________________________________________
From: Tyler Stewart [mailto:k3mm at verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 10:39 PM
To: 'pvrc at mailman.qth.net'
Subject: Things just got serious for hams in Montgomery County...re ZTA05-10
tower restrictions

I just received an email from Councilman Mike Knapp's office that informs me
that the MFP committee just met and has reduced the amateur tower allowances
down to 65 feet of height and 100 percent setback without an appeals
hearing!  We don't deserve this and most of us probably can't afford the
process.

You can read about it here:

http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/compackets/051121/20051121
_mfp04.pdf


Obviously, this means war.  Please forward this information to anyone or
group you know that will be adversely affected by this legislation and I
encourage all to start a barrage on their Council people.  I will forward
all info as I get it.

Ty K3MM


_______________________________________________
PVRC mailing list
PVRC at mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/pvrc

<END>

Attachment 2:
        FROM:   Tyler Stewart [k3mm at verizon.net]
        SUBJECT:        [PVRC] Here is the info I got straight from Knapps
man Brian Jones re: ZTA05-10


<Start>

Hi Tyler -

The Councilmember is in session all day, but asked me to get a response to
you ASAP, especially given that this legislation was considered in the MFP
committee yesterday.

As introduced, ZTA 05-10 adds a new use category, "amateur radio facility,"
permitted by right if the facility does not exceed 100 feet.  At the last
committee work session, the MFP committee (of which Mike is not a member)
unanimously agreed to amend the bill to provide a 65-foot limit for amateur
radio towers, required that an amateur facility be set back one foot for
every foot of height from the property line, and allow additional heights to
be allowed by the Board of Appeals if it can be demonstrated that additional
height is needed to engage in amateur radio communications - that would meet
the standard you were concerned about, I believe, as it would allow you a
tower exceeding 65 feet if it just won't work otherwise.

The committee meeting yesterday was mainly about radio broadcast towers.
The committee voted to set a limit of 275, with exemptions allowed by the
Board of Appeals.  I do not believe they modified any provisions relating to
amateur towers, although they did clean up the definition of "tower" beyond
merely lattice towers.  The Chairman of the Committee (Mrs. Praisner) can
now, if she wishes, call the bill up for further consideration by the full
council.

You can see the long memo prepared by staff for the MFP committee right
here.
(see the link in my previous email)
-----

The Damascus Towers group referred to in the linked document was put
together to fight the construction of an AM broadcast station planned in the
Damascus area.  The ham radio portion of this was obviously spurred by the
Poolesville group fighting our own N3HBX with Praisner in their court.

73, Ty K3MM


_______________________________________________
PVRC mailing list
PVRC at mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/pvrc

<END>

_______________________________________________
MDham mailing list
MDham at mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/mdham