The article was written very poorly and the facts skewed to bully a handicapped child.
“They started off with just a little antenna which was fine then the monstrosity came about the big tower and that's the one we were really worried about. We do see it rocking back and forth,” Eric Scott said. Of course it rocks back and forth...that's what the guy with the PE stamp designed it to do. I somehow don't see a Pulitzer in that journalist's future. Sorry again Kevin for the bandwidth here. Chuck On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:20 PM, wb6dgn <tallins...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Pretty much the same as in my area (NE Ohio). Limit of 35 feet, building > permit ($40.00) and sketch by owner/builder of proposed installation > (professional engineering data not required). Over 35 feet can be > accommodated by a request for variance. That starts to get a bit more > costly, though not out of line, at about $350.00. If you're in pretty good > standing with your neighbors, you probably won't have a problem. I might add > that even these requirements were brought about by some idiot that tried to > put up a 100 foot tower for a commercial WiFi venture and call it a ham > tower. The city found out and instituted the above requirements. Before > that, only good judgment applied. > > > --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com<Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>, > DCFluX <dcf...@...> wrote: > > > > Around here the County doesn't care about towers, as long as they are 40' > > and under and will fall on your property. > > > > > -- ===================================== Charles L. Mills Westmoreland Co. ARES EC Amateur Radio Callsign W3YNI Email: w3y...@gmail.com
