[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Setback requirements (was "permit in hand")

To: W7CE <>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Setback requirements (was "permit in hand")
From: Jim Lux <>
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 06:43:38 -0700
List-post: <>
W7CE wrote:
>> 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.
> I've been wondering about the property line setback requirements for towers 
> recently.  Why do most areas have set back requirements for towers based on 
> height but nothing similar for buildings?  Is there an automatic assumption 
> that standard engineering practice is questionable with tower designs and 
> that they are likely to fall down?  Nobody makes that assumption with 100' 
> plus high commercial buildings.

Buildings aren't tall and skinny.

100 ft high commercial buildings are supported by pallet loads of 
engineering analysis

TowerTalk mailing list

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