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

Jim Lux jimlux at earthlink.net
Sun Sep 2 09:43:38 EDT 2007


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


More information about the TowerTalk mailing list