View Full Version : Deschutes County, OR?
Last night, there was a thread on the News forum (and front page of QRZ) regarding the proposed antenna tower ordinance in Deschutes County, OR.
Now it's gone -- not just moved elsewhere, but gone. :confused:
What happened?
73
KI4RVH
02-23-2008, 04:21 AM
Good question. I had one a few months back that I had made a post on that was gone the next day. I don't know if the originator of a thread can delete and its gone or what? Maybe someone who knows can answer.
73,
Chris
PS- Can you do a search on google and find the article elsewhere? just a thought
NN4RH
02-23-2008, 01:15 PM
Last night, there was a thread on the News forum (and front page of QRZ) regarding the proposed antenna tower ordinance in Deschutes County, OR.
Now it's gone -- not just moved elsewhere, but gone. :confused:
What happened?
73
I was wondering about that, too. It would have made for an interesting discussion about what, exactly, PRB-1 is and means, and what county and local government can legitimately regulate. The lead post said something about it being "illegal under PRB-1" and I had posted a question to try to find out exactly why the authors felt that it was "illegal under PRB-1".
There was a thread about it on eHam but it had degenerated already into nonsense.
What wasn't mentioned yet and is germane, is that Deschutes County was the location of a recent antenna controversy. Some of you may remember this story:
Ham radio tower raises a stink with neighbor - Complaint leads Deschutes to consider changing its code (http://www.bendbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071124/NEWS0107/711240424/1006&nav_category=&template=print)
This proposed ordinance has been over a year in the making. Here's a link to the history of the pending ordinance:
Deschutes County TA-06-10 Proposed Changes to Provide for Ham Radios (http://www.deschutes.org/index.cfm?objectid=015978DE-BDBD-57C1-932DEC5E799C8D7D)
Go down the the very bottom, where it gives links to the documents related to the public hearing that will take place on Monday 2/25. Read "Exhibit B" for the actual ordinance language:
Exhibit B (http://www.deschutes.org/download.cfm?DownloadFile=18BC8E2E-BDBD-57C1-973F189ADB011F27)
And for what it's worth, here's my take on part of it:
For Part A, the less than 70 feet case, the only part that seems unreasonable is section 6:
6. FCC License
a. The property owner shall provide documentation of a current, valid FCC Amateur Radio License for the operation of amateur (“Ham”) radio services in the name of property owner.
b. Compliance may be demonstrated by submitting a copy of the property owner’s Amateur Radio License to the Deschutes County Community Development Department, Building Safety Division at time of application for a building permit.
The problem here is that the licensed ham on the property may not be the property owner but a family member or tenant living there. The ordinance should account for that - change the language to something along the lines of "... in the name of the property owner, family member, tenant or other person legally residing on the property"
Also, Section 6 may be more restrictive than Oregon state law 221.295 (Oregon is one of those states that has incorporated PRB-1 into its statues). I have not examined the complete record but I don't think this angle has been addressed yet:
221.295 Ordinances regulating placement or height of radio antennas. Notwithstanding ORS chapters 215 and 227, a city or county ordinance based on health, safety or aesthetic considerations that regulates the placement, screening or height of the antennas or antenna support structures of amateur radio operators must reasonably accommodate amateur radio communications and must represent the minimum practicable regulation necessary to accomplish the purpose of the city or county. However, a city or county may not restrict antennas or antenna support structures of amateur radio operators to heights of 70 feet or lower unless the restriction is necessary to achieve a clearly defined health, safety or aesthetic objective of the city or county.
The point being that Section 6 is NOT "necessary to accomplish the purpose of the city or county" and is NOT "necessary to achieve a clearly defined health, safety or aesthetic objective of the city or county" therefore should not be in the county code.
If the requirement that the "property owner" be the licensed ham were removed, then the part of the ordinance dealing with towers less than 70 feet would be very reasonable.
NN4RH
02-23-2008, 01:44 PM
The second part of the proposed ordinance, Part B, deals with towers over 70 feet tall. There are more hoops to jump through for that. There's also the requirement that the "property owner" be the licensed ham, which I've already suggested work-arounds for.
The section that seems to have people in the most uproar is the requirement that the ham proposing to erect a tower over 70 feet tall hold a "neighborhood meeting" including everyone that lives within about 1/4 mile (even farther out if you want a tower over 100 feet).
The other sections are such that they're obviously not making it easy to get approval for a tower more than 70 feet, but I don't think they're impossible to meet if someone is willing to put in the effort and expense.
At first glance, the proposed new sections to the county zoning code don't seem so bad. I've certainly seen worse!
Of course, the devil is in the details. The wording on "property owner" could be interpreted so strictly that a tower could not be put up for the child of the property owner (the child being licensed while the parent is not). The neighborhood meeting, at first glance, does not appear to require neighborhood approval... but disapproval might be cited as a reason to turn down a permit.
It's also interesting that, in the thread that disappeared, some of the local hams were complaining that their input to the proposed sections was effectively ignored. That's always a bad sign.
On the other hand, since Oregon has adapted a state-wide version of PRB-1, I would also wonder if the proposal would survive a legal challenge. I wouldn't at all be surprised if it didn't, but that's something only a lawyer could answer.
Still... considering all of the crap that tends to float around these discussion forums, one wonders why THAT thread got sent to the bit bucket? Odd. Very odd.
73
NN4RH
02-23-2008, 07:12 PM
Still... considering all of the crap that tends to float around these discussion forums, one wonders why THAT thread got sent to the bit bucket? Odd. Very odd.
I seem to remember the opening post had a large quoted section in it. I'm just speculating - but maybe there was some copyright issue?
KI4PEQ
02-24-2008, 06:55 AM
Doubtful on the copyright issue unless it was copied from a source such as Westlaw or Thomas.
If it were copied from the county's website directly, it still would have been better to post a link to the site. But in my experience, a county would be hard pressed to claim copyright infringement on a piece of legislation.