The part about "assuming all guys remain intact" is the gotcha that any half
awake local official will zero in on.
----- Original Message -----
From: "bill rubin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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
> 1/2 to 1/3 height. see Rohn Letter on Fall Radius of a Guyed Tower at
> Also see Gunnar Olsen Study
> 73' Bill N1HWC
> <http://www.championradio.com/Gunnar-Olsen.pdf>On 9/1/07, W7CE <
> email@example.com> 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
>> > 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
>> > are quite willing to accept the ROHN catalog specs.
>> I've been wondering about the property line setback requirements for
>> recently. Why do most areas have set back requirements for towers based
>> height but nothing similar for buildings? Is there an automatic
>> that standard engineering practice is questionable with tower designs and
>> that they are likely to fall down? Nobody makes that assumption with
>> plus high commercial buildings.
>> Clay W7CE
>> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk mailing list