Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Glendale, AZ proposes antenna restrictions  (Read 10361 times)
W7DPS
Member

Posts: 2




Ignore
« on: May 19, 2011, 04:53:03 PM »

Glendale, Arizona is proposing changes to its zoning ordinance. The phrase "Amateur Radio Tower" appears 101 times in the following document:

http://www.glendaleaz.com/planning/documents/ZTA09-01ForWebDraftText042011.pdf

The following wording on page 24 of 25 is particularly worrisome:

Quote
Section 7.301.A.6. Accessory Buildings and Uses – Accessory Buildings should be amended as follows:

Section 7.301.A.6. Maximum height of an amateur radio tower is seventy-five (75) feet. All antennas must be retractable when not in use. Maximum height, when retracted is limited to the following:
a. Twenty (20) feet in the A-1, RR-90, RR-45, SR-35, SR-17, and SR-12 zoning districts.
b. Fifteen (15) feet in all other zoning districts.
c. One antenna is permitted for each license issued by the FCC to the property.

Glendale Vice Mayor Steve Frate said "Our Planning Department staff has advised me that this is part of the Zoning Ordinance Update that is scheduled for a Planning Commission meeting on June 2nd."

Time to get the popcorn. This should be interesting.
Logged
N3WAK
Member

Posts: 278




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2011, 06:05:15 PM »

I haven't read the draft--only the quote.  What's interesting is that the quote suggests that an "antenna" and an "amateur radio tower" are two separate things.  How can an "antenna" be "retractable"?  And, if the City means a retractable tower, "retractable" means only "capable of being retracted" when not in use.  The provision does not say that the tower must be retracted when not in use--only retractable. 

Unfortunately, the "one antenna" limitation is pretty onerous.  Hope it won't be adopted.  I bet there are a lot of hams in Glendale who could speak out at the Planning Commission meeting. 

73, Tony N3WAK
Logged
KB3HG
Member

Posts: 404




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: May 21, 2011, 10:00:19 PM »

Section 7.301.A.6. Maximum height of an amateur radio tower is seventy-five (75) feet. All antennas must be retractable when not in use. Maximum height, when retracted is limited to the following:
a. Twenty (20) feet in the A-1, RR-90, RR-45, SR-35, SR-17, and SR-12 zoning districts.
b. Fifteen (15) feet in all other zoning districts.
c. One antenna is permitted for each license issued by the FCC to the property.

First, retractable antenna, does that mean the antenna cannot be wider than 20 feet,or are the trying to have only Stepper and Moxon antennas.

Second, Retractable towers fully collapsed15 or 20 feet. How many manufacturers manufacture such an animal?


Third, When not in use? A beacon station 24/7 I guess. (never retract)
Fourth, Guess they never heard of PRB-1, Wonder if the state recognized PRB-1.

Countless entries of this:
All wireless communication facilities and Amateur Radio Towers are subject to Design Review and must be consistent with wireless communication facilities and Amateur Radio Tower design guidelines.

Whose Guidelines the manufacturers?
or
5.844.F. Wireless communication facilities – alternative design tower structure located within 200 feet of residentially zoned property or a residential property.

What's an alternative design tower structure freestanding vs crank up?

I love this one, this one is special, "c. One antenna is permitted for each license issued by the FCC to the property." Get a FCC license to the property.

This  can be picked apart.
Glad I don't live in Glendale.
Logged
N4NYY
Member

Posts: 4758




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2011, 06:38:40 AM »

If this is fought in a proper manner, they will lose. I would tend to guess they are going on the assumption that no one will fight.
Logged
KG4RUL
Member

Posts: 2722


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2011, 07:35:21 AM »

"c. One antenna is permitted for each license issued by the FCC to the property."

Let's see -OM has a license, XYL has a license, two harmonics have licenses - Does that mean a tower for each license?  FOUR towers??
Logged
KF7CG
Member

Posts: 835




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2011, 08:07:15 AM »

Or it means NONE! The FCC doesn't issue "Station" licences to individuals now, just "Operator" licenses. So no FCC Licenses are issued "to the property."

They didn't say licenses issued to residents or owners but to the property like the no longer issued station license.

KF7CG
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3879




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2011, 12:18:45 PM »

What needs to happen is for a bunch of hams with "standing" (meaning they are homeowners in the affected area) to get up and oppose the changes on specific grounds.

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
W7DPS
Member

Posts: 2




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: June 04, 2011, 08:28:21 PM »

It looks like things are back to normal now. Apparently some Glendale resident was carrying a grudge against some Glendale amateur.

Quote
From: Rick Tannehill
Date: 05/27/2011 09:32
Subject: Partial Victory in Glendale AZ
 
Hi fellow hams (OMs)
 
Good news!  My Glendale councilperson, Yvonne Knaack, called me on the road Wednesday to tell me that the proposed revised ham tower ordnance had been pulled from the agenda for the P&Z meeting on June 2nd, and was very probably completely DEAD.  Although it's still on the web site (they do not remove items in less than two weeks from a meeting), I confirmed with the council representative who controls the agenda that it was indeed pulled, and will not be in the packets sent to the P&Z members for consideration at that meeting.

I asked Yvonne what precipitated this change of heart.  She said it was a combination of the data/input I had provided, along with a number of phone calls to councilmembers from local hams very concerned about it's impact.  So, apparently, we raised the alarm high enough, and quick enough that they knew there would be push-back on this, and decided not to go confrontational on it.......especially since there is really no problem in the first place.  It's all been driven by one citizen complaining to one councilman.  Especially thanks to those of you who contacted councilman Steve Frake.

I will probably still attend the meeting to make sure that nothing is tried to reintroduce it to the agenda, and any of you may certainly attend if you want, but, at this point it does not appear necessary.  We seem to have beaten it back at a very low level.

Thanks to all for your help and support.  I'll keep you up to date if anything else develops after this.

73,
Rick Tannehill - W7RT
ARRL VCE
Glendale, AZ
Good stuff!
Logged
KA7GKN
Member

Posts: 147




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: June 06, 2011, 08:14:15 AM »

I personally want to thank all the Amateur operators who so quickly organized and addressed
this potential problem!

It was very interesting how the city was attempting to sneak in new "rules".
This has not been the first time Glendale has done this....

All of the Amateur clubs in Glendale and Phoenix Metro responded because if this restriction passed
in Glendale all the nearby municipalities would follow in lock step.
 
I also believe the city's motivation was to establish a new revenue stream.

Martin in Glendale AZ KA7GKN
Logged
KL3HY
Member

Posts: 117




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: July 22, 2011, 01:00:28 PM »

I realize I'm a little late on this thread, but why wouldn't the ARRL get involved with this?  I thought they lobbied on behalf of the amateur radio segment.  It would seem to me that what the NRA is to gun issues, ARRL should be to amateur radio issues.

Efforts like this Glendale one, if successful, set dangerous precedents.
Logged
AD6KA
Member

Posts: 2237




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: July 22, 2011, 11:25:26 PM »

I realize I'm a little late on this thread, but why wouldn't the ARRL get involved with this? 
I thought they lobbied on behalf of the amateur radio segment. 
They did, read the letter from ARRL VCE (Volunteer Consulting Engineer)
W7RT in W7DPS's post.

But from the tone of things, I gather that the Glendale, AZ hams could
have killed this zoning change even without the ARRL. It appears to have been
submitted by some non ham with a grudge.
Logged
AE5JU
Member

Posts: 229




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: August 04, 2011, 12:11:01 PM »

What IS the real problem some have with ham antennas? 

Visibility?

The fear of interference on their TV's?

What is the real motivation?  Because it doesn't seem to be revenue, but rather just shutting down ham radio altogether, not just limiting the visibility of the antenna.

What's the deal?

73
Paul - AE5JU
Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 6034




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: August 04, 2011, 12:34:41 PM »

To put it in a single word--asthetics.  Some people just don't like the LOOK of a tower or a large antenna anywhere near their property.  This is why the arguments about neighbors trying to control their entire neighborhood are so frequently heard here.
Logged
CT1DRB
Member

Posts: 6




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: August 04, 2011, 01:01:24 PM »

Hello all,

my call is CT1DRB name David Quental. Since 2007 I face severe antenna restrictions, I am forbidden to install any kind of antenna on roof, does not matter if it is small or big. Any kind of negotiation is out of order, for my condo the decision was taken and it will be for ever.

Main reason: about 4, or more, years ago, a guy, who I do not know who is he or where he lived/lives, in an unknow place, at least for me, went to roof and damaged it and nobody at that block (I do not know where it is) knew who damaged it. Aparently each of owners of that block had to pay about 1000 Eur to solve problem (recently it was increased to 1500 Eur, so I am not certain about correct value). This story was told by a "nice" neighbour, one that payed about 1000 Eur, or 1500 Eur, I am not sure. Because of it he refuses, all the time, to allow me install antennas on.

It seems that Inquisition age is coming once again.

Best 73 to all.

CT1DRB
David Quental
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!