Re: [WISPA] Towers and the Law
Laws aside. Over the years it seems that, by far, the best way to swing a council is to load a room during a public hearing. Get 25 to 50 or more prospective customers to show up at a public meeting and moods can change fast. One other thing that has worked for a few is to build right outside of town (assuming that town is the problem not the county). Hope that helps, Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Larry Yunker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 3:04 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Towers and the Law For the record, OTARD applies to residential rights to have an antenna which enables reception of TV broadcast/satelite signals. I think that OTARD could be used to establish a similar right for a residential use of broadband access antennas as well. However, OTARD doesn't do anything to give the PROVIDER (rather than the end-user) rights to install necessary antennas. So, it sounds like you got lucky with your towers. - Larry - Original Message - From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 3:05 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Towers and the Law We went and built 4 towers (rohn 25g, 50 footers each) on an island where we needed to setup a wireless Backbone around the island. The town came blasting guns, we threw OTARD at them and they bought it. My partner's a good sales guy, though :) We ended up paying $250 per tower in fines, and the $75 permit fee, and we went on our way. YMMV :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Owen Harrell Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:23 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Towers and the Law I hope someone can help me on this. I believe that back in 1997 or 1998 a law was passed that prevented local governments from preventing tower construction that would provide Internet service to remote areas. If anyone knows of such a law or could at least point me in the right direction, it would be greatly appreciated. I am in the process of getting permits for new towers and I would just like to be prepared in the unlikely case that the county was to turn me down for my permits. Thanks in Advance Owen Harrell Technology Supervisor Essex Computers 2 East 3rd Street Sterling, IL 61081 (815)380-4267 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Towers and the Law
Ever wonder what kind of rat's next the mesh guys are gonna run into with this??? roflol Eat that Earthlink Should be fun to watch. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Larry Yunker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 3:55 PM Subject: Fw: [WISPA] Towers and the Law I stand corrected. The actual text of the document indicates that the rules apply: on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user where the user has a direct or indirect ownership or leasehold interest in the property So, if the antenna is situated on leased or owned land (residential or commercial), OTARD can apply. However, OTARD still only deals with end-user antennas and not WISP broadcast service antennas. - Larry - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 4:31 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Towers and the Law I wasn't arguing that point; I was arguing that OTARD doesn't only apply to residential property. -Matt Blake Bowers wrote: As long as you quote, Larry is correct. Look at the web page you mention... The subject line... Over the Air RECEPTION devices rule. Then it does make a little exception down lower in the page, On October 25, 2000, the Commission further amended the rule so that it applies to customer-end antennas that receive and transmit fixed wireless signals. This amendment became effective on May 25, 2001. CUSTOMER-end antennas. Q: Does the rule apply to hub or relay antennas? A: The rule applies to customer-end antennas which are antennas placed at a customer location for the purpose of providing service to customers at that location. The rule does not cover antennas used to transmit signals to and/or receive signals from multiple customer locations. Then it pretty much squashes a WISP's antennas for providing service to multiple users. - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 4:11 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Towers and the Law From http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html... Q: Does the rule apply to commercial property or only residential property? A: Nothing in the rule excludes antennas installed on commercial property. The rule applies to property used for commercial purposes in the same way it applies to residential property. -Matt Larry Yunker wrote: For the record, OTARD applies to residential rights to have an antenna which enables reception of TV broadcast/satelite signals. I think that OTARD could be used to establish a similar right for a residential use of broadband access antennas as well. However, OTARD doesn't do anything to give the PROVIDER (rather than the end-user) rights to install necessary antennas. So, it sounds like you got lucky with your towers. - Larry -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Towers and the Law
I've seen stuff like this before George. It's almost always been a case of the one causing the trouble having a friend or family member working to start up something and they are just trying to slow you down. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Towers and the Law Rick Smith wrote: We went and built 4 towers (rohn 25g, 50 footers each) on an island where we needed to setup a wireless Backbone around the island. The town came blasting guns, we threw OTARD at them and they bought it. My partner's a good sales guy, though :) We ended up paying $250 per tower in fines, and the $75 permit fee, and we went on our way. YMMV :) Your lucky. I got a lease signed by the city for the water towers. Before I got to go on the tower the city told me I needed to have a building permit.I debated the need for a building permit, but ended up buying one anyways, I could be wrong and figured it's just a permit a and some money. And who cares if the city wants to get a few more bucks out of me, it's my city and they gave me a smoking deal on the towers, which I am grateful for. So, then I am about ready to build out the tower, with my lease and permit in hand and I get a call from another city dept head telling me that there was some codes that required me to get a conditional use permit, that nobody realized before they signed a lease and gave me a permit. We debated my need for that as well. Then I was told that the city had adopted a tower ordinance for 'telecommunications' sites. They said that if the antennas were to be placed at more than 9' above the structure that I would have to go in front of the planning commission and get a conditional use permit. So I told them that the antennas were being mounted on the railings of the water tank which is like 20' below the top of the tanks. She comes back with in our ordinance it also says 9' above the ground or above the top of the structure. And your antennas are 9' above the ground. So we debated this abit. I also tossed out there that what I do is not telecommunications but information technology and the FCC says so and the ordinance did not apply to me, just telecommunications. I talked to several other city hall people who you would say are at the top of the chain of command who agreed with me. But I kept having this one person who ultimately was the one to approve and she kept reading the ordinance and disputing what those above her said. There is a protocol involved. I also have on our server a copy of all the city council meetings, planning commission meetings, etc. I found a copy of the meeting where the city council and mayor unanimously approved me building out on the water tanks and directed the city manager to write up a lease. To no avail. I just couldn't get this one person to get with the program. Finally I get everyone involved, it gets discussed at a city council meeting and again they say yes George belongs on the tower and he doe NOT need a conditional use permit. Relief, or so I thought. I actually applied for and paid 900.00 for the conditional use permit application Then finally I get city hall telling me to go pick up my check that it wasn't needed seeing I didn't have to get a conditional use permit. Tiffany goes to pick up the check an she is told, you need to have a design review and that costs 800.00... I came back with that there must have been a design review done because I was given a building permit and I had my guy who is an architectural grad draft up an auto cad of the entire installation right down to the clamps used to scale. She comes back with, we gave you a permit for the bottom of the tower not the top. I couple of phone calls later I got final approval and a call from her saying that she was going to allow me to proceed, but she didn't agree with the i saying it was against the code and she was only giving it to me because her boss is making her . All it takes is one person, regardless if you have 99 other people rooting for you, to stick a spoke in your wheels. Cingular also is in the process of signing a lease on one of these towers and they were grilled by the planning commission who had stacks of letters from neighbors who said they didn't want a cell phone site so close to their homes. They might get cancer from fr radiation. In our county they do have an ordinance saying that all cell phone sites have to be at least 1000' away from a residence. Lucky for me, I wasn't really in a hurry because I've been
Re: [WISPA] Towers and the Law
The plan for any reasonable mesh design calls for mounting mesh nodes on street light poles with utility company pole attachment agreements and right of way access from municipalities. OTARD has nothing to do with that. Scriv Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Ever wonder what kind of rat's next the mesh guys are gonna run into with this??? roflol Eat that Earthlink Should be fun to watch. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Towers and the Law
We went and built 4 towers (rohn 25g, 50 footers each) on an island where we needed to setup a wireless Backbone around the island. The town came blasting guns, we threw OTARD at them and they bought it. My partner's a good sales guy, though :) We ended up paying $250 per tower in fines, and the $75 permit fee, and we went on our way. YMMV :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Owen Harrell Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:23 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Towers and the Law I hope someone can help me on this. I believe that back in 1997 or 1998 a law was passed that prevented local governments from preventing tower construction that would provide Internet service to remote areas. If anyone knows of such a law or could at least point me in the right direction, it would be greatly appreciated. I am in the process of getting permits for new towers and I would just like to be prepared in the unlikely case that the county was to turn me down for my permits. Thanks in Advance Owen Harrell Technology Supervisor Essex Computers 2 East 3rd Street Sterling, IL 61081 (815)380-4267 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Towers and the Law
For the record, OTARD applies to residential rights to have an antenna which enables reception of TV broadcast/satelite signals. I think that OTARD could be used to establish a similar right for a residential use of broadband access antennas as well. However, OTARD doesn't do anything to give the PROVIDER (rather than the end-user) rights to install necessary antennas. So, it sounds like you got lucky with your towers. - Larry - Original Message - From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 3:05 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Towers and the Law We went and built 4 towers (rohn 25g, 50 footers each) on an island where we needed to setup a wireless Backbone around the island. The town came blasting guns, we threw OTARD at them and they bought it. My partner's a good sales guy, though :) We ended up paying $250 per tower in fines, and the $75 permit fee, and we went on our way. YMMV :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Owen Harrell Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:23 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Towers and the Law I hope someone can help me on this. I believe that back in 1997 or 1998 a law was passed that prevented local governments from preventing tower construction that would provide Internet service to remote areas. If anyone knows of such a law or could at least point me in the right direction, it would be greatly appreciated. I am in the process of getting permits for new towers and I would just like to be prepared in the unlikely case that the county was to turn me down for my permits. Thanks in Advance Owen Harrell Technology Supervisor Essex Computers 2 East 3rd Street Sterling, IL 61081 (815)380-4267 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Towers and the Law
From http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html... Q: Does the rule apply to commercial property or only residential property? A: Nothing in the rule excludes antennas installed on commercial property. The rule applies to property used for commercial purposes in the same way it applies to residential property. -Matt Larry Yunker wrote: For the record, OTARD applies to residential rights to have an antenna which enables reception of TV broadcast/satelite signals. I think that OTARD could be used to establish a similar right for a residential use of broadband access antennas as well. However, OTARD doesn't do anything to give the PROVIDER (rather than the end-user) rights to install necessary antennas. So, it sounds like you got lucky with your towers. - Larry - Original Message - From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 3:05 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Towers and the Law We went and built 4 towers (rohn 25g, 50 footers each) on an island where we needed to setup a wireless Backbone around the island. The town came blasting guns, we threw OTARD at them and they bought it. My partner's a good sales guy, though :) We ended up paying $250 per tower in fines, and the $75 permit fee, and we went on our way. YMMV :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Owen Harrell Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:23 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Towers and the Law I hope someone can help me on this. I believe that back in 1997 or 1998 a law was passed that prevented local governments from preventing tower construction that would provide Internet service to remote areas. If anyone knows of such a law or could at least point me in the right direction, it would be greatly appreciated. I am in the process of getting permits for new towers and I would just like to be prepared in the unlikely case that the county was to turn me down for my permits. Thanks in Advance Owen Harrell Technology Supervisor Essex Computers 2 East 3rd Street Sterling, IL 61081 (815)380-4267 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Towers and the Law
As long as you quote, Larry is correct. Look at the web page you mention... The subject line... Over the Air RECEPTION devices rule. Then it does make a little exception down lower in the page, On October 25, 2000, the Commission further amended the rule so that it applies to customer-end antennas that receive and transmit fixed wireless signals. This amendment became effective on May 25, 2001. CUSTOMER-end antennas. Q: Does the rule apply to hub or relay antennas? A: The rule applies to customer-end antennas which are antennas placed at a customer location for the purpose of providing service to customers at that location. The rule does not cover antennas used to transmit signals to and/or receive signals from multiple customer locations. Then it pretty much squashes a WISP's antennas for providing service to multiple users. - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 4:11 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Towers and the Law From http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html... Q: Does the rule apply to commercial property or only residential property? A: Nothing in the rule excludes antennas installed on commercial property. The rule applies to property used for commercial purposes in the same way it applies to residential property. -Matt Larry Yunker wrote: For the record, OTARD applies to residential rights to have an antenna which enables reception of TV broadcast/satelite signals. I think that OTARD could be used to establish a similar right for a residential use of broadband access antennas as well. However, OTARD doesn't do anything to give the PROVIDER (rather than the end-user) rights to install necessary antennas. So, it sounds like you got lucky with your towers. - Larry -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Towers and the Law
I wasn't arguing that point; I was arguing that OTARD doesn't only apply to residential property. -Matt Blake Bowers wrote: As long as you quote, Larry is correct. Look at the web page you mention... The subject line... Over the Air RECEPTION devices rule. Then it does make a little exception down lower in the page, On October 25, 2000, the Commission further amended the rule so that it applies to customer-end antennas that receive and transmit fixed wireless signals. This amendment became effective on May 25, 2001. CUSTOMER-end antennas. Q: Does the rule apply to hub or relay antennas? A: The rule applies to customer-end antennas which are antennas placed at a customer location for the purpose of providing service to customers at that location. The rule does not cover antennas used to transmit signals to and/or receive signals from multiple customer locations. Then it pretty much squashes a WISP's antennas for providing service to multiple users. - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 4:11 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Towers and the Law From http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html... Q: Does the rule apply to commercial property or only residential property? A: Nothing in the rule excludes antennas installed on commercial property. The rule applies to property used for commercial purposes in the same way it applies to residential property. -Matt Larry Yunker wrote: For the record, OTARD applies to residential rights to have an antenna which enables reception of TV broadcast/satelite signals. I think that OTARD could be used to establish a similar right for a residential use of broadband access antennas as well. However, OTARD doesn't do anything to give the PROVIDER (rather than the end-user) rights to install necessary antennas. So, it sounds like you got lucky with your towers. - Larry -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Towers and the Law
Rick Smith wrote: We went and built 4 towers (rohn 25g, 50 footers each) on an island where we needed to setup a wireless Backbone around the island. The town came blasting guns, we threw OTARD at them and they bought it. My partner's a good sales guy, though :) We ended up paying $250 per tower in fines, and the $75 permit fee, and we went on our way. YMMV :) Your lucky. I got a lease signed by the city for the water towers. Before I got to go on the tower the city told me I needed to have a building permit.I debated the need for a building permit, but ended up buying one anyways, I could be wrong and figured it's just a permit a and some money. And who cares if the city wants to get a few more bucks out of me, it's my city and they gave me a smoking deal on the towers, which I am grateful for. So, then I am about ready to build out the tower, with my lease and permit in hand and I get a call from another city dept head telling me that there was some codes that required me to get a conditional use permit, that nobody realized before they signed a lease and gave me a permit. We debated my need for that as well. Then I was told that the city had adopted a tower ordinance for 'telecommunications' sites. They said that if the antennas were to be placed at more than 9' above the structure that I would have to go in front of the planning commission and get a conditional use permit. So I told them that the antennas were being mounted on the railings of the water tank which is like 20' below the top of the tanks. She comes back with in our ordinance it also says 9' above the ground or above the top of the structure. And your antennas are 9' above the ground. So we debated this abit. I also tossed out there that what I do is not telecommunications but information technology and the FCC says so and the ordinance did not apply to me, just telecommunications. I talked to several other city hall people who you would say are at the top of the chain of command who agreed with me. But I kept having this one person who ultimately was the one to approve and she kept reading the ordinance and disputing what those above her said. There is a protocol involved. I also have on our server a copy of all the city council meetings, planning commission meetings, etc. I found a copy of the meeting where the city council and mayor unanimously approved me building out on the water tanks and directed the city manager to write up a lease. To no avail. I just couldn't get this one person to get with the program. Finally I get everyone involved, it gets discussed at a city council meeting and again they say yes George belongs on the tower and he doe NOT need a conditional use permit. Relief, or so I thought. I actually applied for and paid 900.00 for the conditional use permit application Then finally I get city hall telling me to go pick up my check that it wasn't needed seeing I didn't have to get a conditional use permit. Tiffany goes to pick up the check an she is told, you need to have a design review and that costs 800.00... I came back with that there must have been a design review done because I was given a building permit and I had my guy who is an architectural grad draft up an auto cad of the entire installation right down to the clamps used to scale. She comes back with, we gave you a permit for the bottom of the tower not the top. I couple of phone calls later I got final approval and a call from her saying that she was going to allow me to proceed, but she didn't agree with the i saying it was against the code and she was only giving it to me because her boss is making her . All it takes is one person, regardless if you have 99 other people rooting for you, to stick a spoke in your wheels. Cingular also is in the process of signing a lease on one of these towers and they were grilled by the planning commission who had stacks of letters from neighbors who said they didn't want a cell phone site so close to their homes. They might get cancer from fr radiation. In our county they do have an ordinance saying that all cell phone sites have to be at least 1000' away from a residence. Lucky for me, I wasn't really in a hurry because I've been waiting for the final version of Lonnie's war boards to come out. I just today got the approved set of prints back and will start this week on my tower project. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Towers and the Law
Unfortuneately I believe the legal battle went in the favor of the county. There is one major case that addressed this. For the life of me, the details are escaping my mind. From what I remember the law was meant to encourage prompt response from the county, apposed to a requirement that the county had to authorize the tower building. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Owen Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:22 PM Subject: [WISPA] Towers and the Law I hope someone can help me on this. I believe that back in 1997 or 1998 a law was passed that prevented local governments from preventing tower construction that would provide Internet service to remote areas. If anyone knows of such a law or could at least point me in the right direction, it would be greatly appreciated. I am in the process of getting permits for new towers and I would just like to be prepared in the unlikely case that the county was to turn me down for my permits. Thanks in Advance Owen Harrell Technology Supervisor Essex Computers 2 East 3rd Street Sterling, IL 61081 (815)380-4267 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Towers and the Law
George, Congratulations on your ability and your willingness to hang in there! jack George Rogato wrote: Rick Smith wrote: We went and built 4 towers (rohn 25g, 50 footers each) on an island where we needed to setup a wireless Backbone around the island. The town came blasting guns, we threw OTARD at them and they bought it. My partner's a good sales guy, though :) We ended up paying $250 per tower in fines, and the $75 permit fee, and we went on our way. YMMV :) Your lucky. I got a lease signed by the city for the water towers. Before I got to go on the tower the city told me I needed to have a building permit.I debated the need for a building permit, but ended up buying one anyways, I could be wrong and figured it's just a permit a and some money. And who cares if the city wants to get a few more bucks out of me, it's my city and they gave me a smoking deal on the towers, which I am grateful for. So, then I am about ready to build out the tower, with my lease and permit in hand and I get a call from another city dept head telling me that there was some codes that required me to get a conditional use permit, that nobody realized before they signed a lease and gave me a permit. We debated my need for that as well. Then I was told that the city had adopted a tower ordinance for 'telecommunications' sites. They said that if the antennas were to be placed at more than 9' above the structure that I would have to go in front of the planning commission and get a conditional use permit. So I told them that the antennas were being mounted on the railings of the water tank which is like 20' below the top of the tanks. She comes back with in our ordinance it also says 9' above the ground or above the top of the structure. And your antennas are 9' above the ground. So we debated this abit. I also tossed out there that what I do is not telecommunications but information technology and the FCC says so and the ordinance did not apply to me, just telecommunications. I talked to several other city hall people who you would say are at the top of the chain of command who agreed with me. But I kept having this one person who ultimately was the one to approve and she kept reading the ordinance and disputing what those above her said. There is a protocol involved. I also have on our server a copy of all the city council meetings, planning commission meetings, etc. I found a copy of the meeting where the city council and mayor unanimously approved me building out on the water tanks and directed the city manager to write up a lease. To no avail. I just couldn't get this one person to get with the program. Finally I get everyone involved, it gets discussed at a city council meeting and again they say yes George belongs on the tower and he doe NOT need a conditional use permit. Relief, or so I thought. I actually applied for and paid 900.00 for the conditional use permit application Then finally I get city hall telling me to go pick up my check that it wasn't needed seeing I didn't have to get a conditional use permit. Tiffany goes to pick up the check an she is told, you need to have a design review and that costs 800.00... I came back with that there must have been a design review done because I was given a building permit and I had my guy who is an architectural grad draft up an auto cad of the entire installation right down to the clamps used to scale. She comes back with, we gave you a permit for the bottom of the tower not the top. I couple of phone calls later I got final approval and a call from her saying that she was going to allow me to proceed, but she didn't agree with the i saying it was against the code and she was only giving it to me because her boss is making her . All it takes is one person, regardless if you have 99 other people rooting for you, to stick a spoke in your wheels. Cingular also is in the process of signing a lease on one of these towers and they were grilled by the planning commission who had stacks of letters from neighbors who said they didn't want a cell phone site so close to their homes. They might get cancer from fr radiation. In our county they do have an ordinance saying that all cell phone sites have to be at least 1000' away from a residence. Lucky for me, I wasn't really in a hurry because I've been waiting for the final version of Lonnie's war boards to come out. I just today got the approved set of prints back and will start this week on my tower project. George -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshop is June 21-22 in Atlanta, GA. Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] Towers and the Law
Thanks Jack, Besides hanging in there, I tried very hard not to piss anyone off or offend them. Politics can get messy. George Jack Unger wrote: George, Congratulations on your ability and your willingness to hang in there! jack George Rogato wrote: Rick Smith wrote: We went and built 4 towers (rohn 25g, 50 footers each) on an island where we needed to setup a wireless Backbone around the island. The town came blasting guns, we threw OTARD at them and they bought it. My partner's a good sales guy, though :) We ended up paying $250 per tower in fines, and the $75 permit fee, and we went on our way. YMMV :) Your lucky. I got a lease signed by the city for the water towers. Before I got to go on the tower the city told me I needed to have a building permit.I debated the need for a building permit, but ended up buying one anyways, I could be wrong and figured it's just a permit a and some money. And who cares if the city wants to get a few more bucks out of me, it's my city and they gave me a smoking deal on the towers, which I am grateful for. So, then I am about ready to build out the tower, with my lease and permit in hand and I get a call from another city dept head telling me that there was some codes that required me to get a conditional use permit, that nobody realized before they signed a lease and gave me a permit. We debated my need for that as well. Then I was told that the city had adopted a tower ordinance for 'telecommunications' sites. They said that if the antennas were to be placed at more than 9' above the structure that I would have to go in front of the planning commission and get a conditional use permit. So I told them that the antennas were being mounted on the railings of the water tank which is like 20' below the top of the tanks. She comes back with in our ordinance it also says 9' above the ground or above the top of the structure. And your antennas are 9' above the ground. So we debated this abit. I also tossed out there that what I do is not telecommunications but information technology and the FCC says so and the ordinance did not apply to me, just telecommunications. I talked to several other city hall people who you would say are at the top of the chain of command who agreed with me. But I kept having this one person who ultimately was the one to approve and she kept reading the ordinance and disputing what those above her said. There is a protocol involved. I also have on our server a copy of all the city council meetings, planning commission meetings, etc. I found a copy of the meeting where the city council and mayor unanimously approved me building out on the water tanks and directed the city manager to write up a lease. To no avail. I just couldn't get this one person to get with the program. Finally I get everyone involved, it gets discussed at a city council meeting and again they say yes George belongs on the tower and he doe NOT need a conditional use permit. Relief, or so I thought. I actually applied for and paid 900.00 for the conditional use permit application Then finally I get city hall telling me to go pick up my check that it wasn't needed seeing I didn't have to get a conditional use permit. Tiffany goes to pick up the check an she is told, you need to have a design review and that costs 800.00... I came back with that there must have been a design review done because I was given a building permit and I had my guy who is an architectural grad draft up an auto cad of the entire installation right down to the clamps used to scale. She comes back with, we gave you a permit for the bottom of the tower not the top. I couple of phone calls later I got final approval and a call from her saying that she was going to allow me to proceed, but she didn't agree with the i saying it was against the code and she was only giving it to me because her boss is making her . All it takes is one person, regardless if you have 99 other people rooting for you, to stick a spoke in your wheels. Cingular also is in the process of signing a lease on one of these towers and they were grilled by the planning commission who had stacks of letters from neighbors who said they didn't want a cell phone site so close to their homes. They might get cancer from fr radiation. In our county they do have an ordinance saying that all cell phone sites have to be at least 1000' away from a residence. Lucky for me, I wasn't really in a hurry because I've been waiting for the final version of Lonnie's war boards to come out. I just today got the approved set of prints back and will start this week on my tower project. George -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
