Home » City Council, Community » Amateur Radio Tower Review and Update

Amateur Radio Tower Review and Update

SedonaEye.com columnist Eddie Maddock

SedonaEye.com columnist Eddie Maddock with a Sedona amateur radio tower situation update

Sedona AZ (March 31, 2014)This review and update is in response to a written request to the Publisher of Sedona Eye and was accomplished through the cooperation of Sedona City Manager, Tim Ernster, and Audree Juhlin, Interim Director, Community & Economic Development.

The following is of public record and comes directly from Ms. Juhlin:

MEMORANDUM

To: Tim Ernster, City Manager

From: Audree Juhlin, Interim Director, Community & Economic Development

Date: March 19, 2014

Subject: Overview/Update – 1005 Soldier Pass Road, Amateur Radio Tower

This memo serves as an overview/update regarding the Amateur Radio Tower located at 1005 Soldier Pass Road. The original permit submitted on March 22, 2013 by property owner Richard Factor was specifically for the tower structure and not the antenna. Per Mr. Factor’s cover letter submitted with the application he states “The project is in two phases. The first involves digging a hole for the tower base, inserting the manufactured mounting base and filling the hole with concrete. The second phase, after the concrete has cured, involves mounting the tower on the base with the use of a crane.” As such, all material submitted as part of the application was directly related to the tower itself with the exception of documentation of Mr. Factor’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued license.

There are two governing factors for amateur radio towers located within the City of Sedona city limits; 1) FCC regulations, and, 2) Sedona Land Development Code requirements.

Sedona radio tower on Soldier Pass Road

Sedona radio tower on Soldier Pass Road

On September 16, 1985, the FCC issued a Declaratory Ruling, known as PRB-1 which states that local governments must reasonably accommodate amateur operations. The essence of PRB-1 is that amateur radio operators are important to the interests of the nation. Therefore, conflicts between amateur operators using radio antennas and restrictive zoning ordinances are to be avoided. However, FCC recognized that local governments must address the concerns of all its citizens and if their interests are applied in an “even-handed” fashion they may affect amateur radio operators. The FCC states that it would not “specify any particular height limitation below which a local government may not regulate, nor will we suggest the preset mechanisms for special exceptions, variances or conditional use permits. Nevertheless, local regulations which involve height of antennas based on health, safety or aesthetic considerations must be crafted to accommodate reasonably amateur communications and to represent the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the local authority’s legitimate purpose”. The FCC authorizes antennas up to two hundred feet in height, with approval necessary for those who wish to exceed that height limit.

The Sedona Land Development Code addresses amateur radio towers in two sections. Article 9 (Development Standards), Section 903.08 (Towers & Antennas) states that “the towers and antennas used by federally licensed amateur radio operators shall be exempt from the district’s height limitations for buildings. Any such tower must be located on the lot so that its reclining length (in case of collapse) would be contained within the bounds of the lot. If the operator no longer holds a valid federal amateur radio operator’s license, the tower and antenna must be dismantled.” Article 17 (Wireless Communication Facilities), Section 1703.01 (Applicability) exempts amateur radio operations from the provisions of Article 17: “Noncommercial amateur radio antennas which are less than 60 feet in height. Noncommercial, amateur, ham radio or citizen’s band antenna-supporting structures, antennas or antenna arrays with a height greater than 60 feet shall be regulated in accordance with Section 1705.” This section provides for the review and consideration of towers greater than 60 feet through a conditional use permit.

Article 2 (Definitions) defines an “Antenna” as “any apparatus designed for the transmitting and/or receiving of electromagnetic waves that includes but is not limited to telephonic, radio or television communications. Types of antennas include, but are not limited to omni-direction (whip) antennas, sectorized (panel) antennas, multi- or single-bay (FM and TV), yagi, or parabolic (dish) antennas. Article 2 defines “Antenna supporting structure height” as the distance from the finished grade of the parcel to the highest point on the tower and attached antenna(s) and antenna arrays including the base pad.

The application submitted by Mr. Factor was for consideration to construct a 60 foot radio tower on his residential property for noncommercial purposes. Staff understands that these types of towers are typically available in a range of heights and that Mr. Factor purchased a 70 foot tower with the intention of operating at 60 feet or less. The tower is a motorized “crank-up” operating system.

Based on the application submitted, staff review included, but was not limited to:

• Location in relationship to power lines. Tower must be located so that it does not fall on the power lines.

• Location in relationship to surrounding properties. Tower must be located so that it does not fall on neighboring properties.

• Fence around base (help prevent others from climbing the tower).

• Wind load capacity for the tower (size and weight calculations of supporting structures and antennas) based on our geographic region.

• Tower breakpoint technology to ensure that the tower is engineered so that in the event of weather induced failure, the failure will occur at the breakpoint rather than at the base or any other point on the tower.

• Installation of tower according to all applicable building code requirements.

• Federally issued amateur radio operator’s license. Operation of an amateur radio requires an amateur operator license from the FCC. Before receiving a license, the operator must pass an examination. The examination results determine the license operator class for which the operator is qualified (testing of skills and abilities in operating an amateur radio).

Once these considerations were satisfactorily addressed, staff conditionally approved the tower restricting the total height to no more than 59’ 9”. (Note: If at any time the tower exceeded the height restriction, Mr. Factor will be required to obtain a conditional use permit from the Planning & Zoning Commission.)

On January 21, 2014, Mr. Factor was notified that the building permit was still considered “open” because a yagi antenna was installed on the tower without proper review and approvals.

Building Safety staff is currently working with Mr. Factor in the review of the yagi antenna. A correction list was provided to Mr. Factor relating to the yagi and requesting additional information needed as part of staff’s review process. Mr. Factor is working with staff and has provided information specific to the yagi and has also agreed to provide worst case scenario RF exposure calculations, submit an annual report to the City (FCC annual station evaluation worksheet), and annually provide a current copy of his amateur radio operator’s license. Although the current color of the tower structure meets Code requirements, Mr. Factor has agreed to a request made by adjacent neighbors to repaint the tower in a mutually agreed color.

Additionally, as part of the conditions of approval, Mr. Factor must mark the tower in a manner acceptable to the City to easily identify from the public right-of-way the 60 foot demarcation on the tower/antenna structure.

Furthermore, staff hired Marv Wessell with Global RF Solutions, a specialist recommended by an Engineer with FCC to conduct a third-party independent analysis of the RF exposures at 1005 Soldier Pass road and the adjacent property at 1015 Soldier Pass Road to determine if Mr. Factor is compliant with FCC exposure laws under 47 C.F.R. Section 97.13.C. Mr. Wessell has completed his review and analysis and submitted a Report of Findings on March 14, 2014 to staff for review.

Once staff has completed all reviews and inspections, Mr. Factor will be informed of staff’s findings. Staff will also notify the neighbors.

In conclusion, Audree Juhlin offered the following:

“To clarify next steps – Staff needs to finish our review of the application material, conduct at least one more site visit and then make a determination of if and how we issue a final approval on the permit application. At this point, I do not see the issue going before the Planning & Zoning Commission. However, if upon the issuance of the permit the property owner is in violation of the permit conditions, that could trigger the need for a conditional use permit, which would require P&Z review and consideration.”

Based on the controversy of the installation of this tower, it’s highly likely the Sedona Land Development Code relating to towers and antennas will be slated for review and possible revision in the very near future.

For the best in Arizona news and views, read www.SedonaEye.com daily!

For the best in Arizona news and views, read www.SedonaEye.com daily!

14 Comments

  1. Bob Sedona says:

    Eddie Maddock finds out what the city is doing again. Appreciate the Effort made.

  2. Thank you, Bob Sedona, but the byline should really be credited to Audree Juhlin. On second thought, it might be an advantage to both Audree and Tim Ernster for my name to be out there. That way neither of them will be the target for shooting the messenger.

  3. Switzerland Created: 1 Apr 2014 posted via Facebook

    Today a major class action suit on behalf of 187456345 plaintiffs was launched against World Health Organisation EMF project.

    The association Lab Rats International have launched a campaign to clear their name. Other species of science are also considering joining the class action.

    R.O Dent, a lawyer representing the association, stated that rats do accept that they are perceived as vermin, but simply won’t tolerate being labelled as crazies, as is clearly implied by the WHOs attribution of biological effects of RF exposures to purely psychological factors.

    One member of the association squeaked its frustration at the press conference: “its like everyone now think we be nuts or something… dude! we can do mazes! so we cant be, like, all stupid, eh?”.

    Mr Dent said that his clients felt betrayed for all their hard work in science and warned that if the WHO did not publicly apologize, they would suffer an invasion from “both the heavens and below” as angry birds and rats have vowed to descent and rise on Geneva in support of the campaign.

    The WHO EMF project has not yet responded to requests for comment.

    headache,headaches,migrane,migranes,nausea,cancer,tumor,tumors,health risk,cellphone,cell…
    http://www.mast-victims.org
    Mobile phone masts, cell phone towers, wifi, cell phones, mobile phones and wireless are making people sick…

  4. So now, let’s determine from our upcoming City Council candidates their stance on permitting towers such as this to be erected on private residential properties as IMO this should not be allowed. Is there anything in the “new” Community Plan that speaks to such an issue?

  5. Tom Bergen says:

    Once again, leave it to Ms Maddock to seek and speak the truth. I love the fact that Eddie had a question, sought out the proper city workers for factual information and then posted it for all to see.

    Thank you AGAIN Ms Maddock. YOU ROCK!

    Just wish that former city employee would stop posting half truths and myths for his own personal vendetta on the city and he’d take a lesson from Ms. Maddock.

  6. Petra says:

    Well said all.

  7. Am sick and tired of politicians who are short sighted and lack even basic elements of intelligence with principles of governance and fiduciary responsibility. You expect it from those who are paternalistic and have no faith in the abilities of others or democrats for lack of a better label. Thanks democrats in office for your poor performance on city council. Too bad more was expected of you.

  8. Mikey says:

    “Voting resident” doesn’t get it. As Eddie so well articulates, PRB-1 states that local governments must reasonably accommodate amateur operations. “….. Local regulations which involve height of antennas based on health, safety or aesthetic considerations must be crafted to accommodate reasonably amateur communications and to represent the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the local authority’s legitimate purpose”.

    It doesn’t matter how the upcoming City Coucil candidates feel about it. Such antennas/towers must be reasonably accomodated by local authorities.

    On the other hand, home owners association restrictions on such towers/antennas are the basis for a legally binding agreement when one purchases a home in a subdivision that may have such restrictions. PRB-1 applies to local governmental units only.

  9. Marge says:

    Sure, legally the tower is in compliance but what about such a thoughtless person with lack of compassion putting his hobby above adjacent neighbors and surrounding property values? Of course, the trend might just be heading that way when other areas and subdivisions are considered for rezoning to higher density development.

  10. Tom Bergen says:

    @ Marge

    Thanks to the detective work by Eddie, we’re all learned something. Maybe the neighbors should sit down with the radio hobbyist and talk. If that doesn’t work perhaps you all can come up with a better plan yourselves.

    It’s easy to look to others when things don’t go your way, now that we have been educated by Eddie and convinced that the city has done all that they can because of laws that protect EVERYONE, it’s up to the neighbors.

    BTW, I HATE THE DARN ANTENNA ALSO. But, that owner has rights too.

    Thanks again Eddie, YOU STILL ROCK!

  11. To Tom Bergen whoever you are: Although I appreciate your compliments they should rightfully be directed to Tim Ernster who advised me of the memo from Audree Juhlin and, of course, to her for providing the factual situation. My only contribution was nagging them for the information and then making it public.
    Thanks anyway.

  12. Tom Bergen says:

    @Eddie

    My point being that more people should do what you seem to like doing: Searching out answers to questions before speaking.

  13. Hey Tom Bergen, it isn’t that I necessarily enjoy what I’m doing but many years ago it became a necessity for me and my late husband to survive in Sedona. And I have boxes of evidence to prove my point. If in any way I’m able to assist others by providing facts which might serve to be helpful I will gladly do so. It wasn’t my intention to indicate I didn’t appreciate your kind words and I apologize if it didn’t come across that way.

  14. We Had The Same Issues With Satellite Antennas. People Keep Ignoring Federal Regulations And Keep Losing.

Leave a Reply

Copyright © 2008-2017 · Sedona Eye · All Rights Reserved · Posts · Comments · Facebook · Twitter ·