Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "bill rubin" <brubin2010@gmail.com>, <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Setback requirements (was "permit in hand")
From: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 08:32:51 -0400
List-post: <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
The part about "assuming all guys remain intact" is the gotcha that any half 
awake local official will zero in on.

Carl
KM1H


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "bill rubin" <brubin2010@gmail.com>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 12:58 AM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Setback requirements (was "permit in hand")


> Perhaps this will help your case,  Rohn letter stating that tower failure 
> is
> 1/2 to 1/3 height. see Rohn Letter on Fall Radius of a Guyed Tower at
> http://www.antennazoning.com/_mgxroot/page_10748.html
>
> Also see Gunnar Olsen Study 
> <http://www.championradio.com/Gunnar-Olsen.pdf>
> http://www.championradio.com/technotes.html
>
>
> 73' Bill N1HWC
>
> <http://www.championradio.com/Gunnar-Olsen.pdf>On 9/1/07, W7CE <
> w7ce@curtiss.net> 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.
>>
>> 73,
>> Clay  W7CE
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> 

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

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