To answer some of the postings and to close this thread:
The "definitely" in my post was the setback to the tower
base, IF there is an antenna ordinance in the first place.
And, no argument that your mileage may vary depending on
both laws and local customs and friendship with the city
Combining the two adacent city lots was not likely to be approved,
at least not in old neighbhoods that have basically identical
property footprints; city planners here don't like the idea of
dissimilar lot sizes and verbally said it would be unlikely that
I could combine the two existing lots for that reason alone.
And then, they added that I couldn't have multiple dwellings on
on a single lot.
And, so I would have to physically and permanently connect the
two houses with a permanent connection (no, an enclosed walkway
between the two would not qualify).
And then, I would have run into issues with multiple kitchens,
potential sub-rental usage, and a myriad of other issues that
they were ready to also use to prevent the combination of the
two lots into one.
When I asked how the telephone and power lines could cross
that same property line that I couldn't cross with my antenna
elemements, the planners said it required a state law.
In the end, I lost the decision in the local zoning variance
committee, but because the City Attorney who was present was
VERY familiar with PRB-1, and because there never was a
complaint from a neighbor (au contraire, I had positive
presence of neighbors at the meeting) the city has chosen
to not take any action, as they know it would then have
gone to state court to resolve, and that would have been
a cost to the city for an unneeded expenditure.
I also pointed out that it was ONLY a temporary variance
that was required, since the tower/antenna were lifted
into place by a crane and could be removed, so it was
NOT a permanent structure, adding that since I planned
to live to 100, I only need 33 years of temporary variance.
TowerTalk mailing list