Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />SECTION ~-600 AMENDED MAY 21, 1981 <br />PAGE 2 <br /> <br />C.l OK <br /> <br />C.2 OK <br /> <br />C.3 OK <br /> <br />C.~ No license is required in the United States of America for the reception <br /> <br />of any radio frequency emission. I submit, therefore, that subsection <br /> <br />C, subpart ~ is unnecessary verbage. Is there any intent by the city <br /> <br />to require a person to acquire some kind of license just to be able <br /> <br />to erect a tower or antenna? <br /> <br />C.5 Again, this whole section mixes terms. It also treats all antennas <br /> <br />and towers whether roof-mounted or not by the same rules. Why should all <br /> <br />this paper work in sub-part 5 be reouired when applying for a special <br /> <br />use permit to erect a roof-mounted CB-type vertical antenna having a <br /> <br />total height of 8 to 20 feet and a weight of less than 15 lbs.? <br /> <br />C.6 OK <br /> <br />C.7 OK. Excess verbage. <br /> <br />C.8 OK (I have not read chapter VIII) <br /> <br />FUR THER COMMENTS <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />As stated earlier, there is no subsection listing definitions. <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />I suggested on May 5 that the Planning Commission consider the <br /> <br />Bloomington City Code as a prototype. The reason for my suggestion <br /> <br />is that the taxpayers' money should not be wasted re-inventing the <br /> <br />wheel. In its effort to be unique, the Planning Commission has written <br /> <br />into this section both some interesting loopholes and some serious <br /> <br />potential violations of the rights of its citizens by the city o~ New 'BrIClh.ton. <br />