[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] permit in hand

Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] permit in hand
From: "Kelly Johnson" <>
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 20:03:36 -0700
List-post: <>
> When they wrote the tower regs for our township we had two hams on the
> planning committee.
> The population density is pretty heavy out here so the only concerns were
> safety and they made a specific distinction between ham and comercial
> towers. Our only limitations are "stet back limits" meaning if it goes over
> it has to land on your property, unless you can get a wavier from that
> neighbor. The other was anything over 80' needs to be engineered and they
> are quite willing to accept the ROHN catalog specs.
> Roger (K8RI)

These types of set back limits *should* be easy to fight.  How many
ordinances can you name that allow for a 35 foot tall house to be
erected 10 feet from the property line?  How many cities allow 10
story tall buildings to be built right next to someone else's
property?  What about skyscrapers next to public streets?  What if the
skyscraper falls?  They never fall, right?  Remember 9/11?  Remember
San Franciso earthquakes?  If towers must be a distance from the
property line equal to their height, then so should every other
manmade structure.  What about street light poles?  What about utility
poles?  They don't have to meet these requirements.  Why ham and cell
towers?  It's simple.  These types of set back rules are simply
another "back door" way of limiting tower height.  They have nothing
to do with safety.

TowerTalk mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>