On 6/11/17 3:23 PM, Shawn Donley wrote:
Just some observations and thoughts... nothing too serious here.
Most zoning ordinances stipulate a setback requirement for a tower.
Around here, the setback from the nearest property line must be equal
to or greater than 75% of the total height of the tower.
But... I've always wondered what drives this requirement at all
(forget the 75% part and how towers fail). Is it safety (for your
neighbors) or aesthetics (perhaps further from the property line
means less visible in most cases)?
If it's safety, why don't said ordinances prohibit planting a tree
without a similar setback? A red oak 18" in diameter and 72 ft tall
weighs about 5200 lbs (source:
https://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/ch/ch01/Chvolume01page401.pdf). A
UST HDX-572MDPL weighs in at 1600 lbs (transport weight). Which is
likely to do more damage?
I think that safety is more a "post hoc" rationale for a rule that gets
made. If you were to show that your tower could only collapse in a heap
because you've placed eleventy seven guys and struts, you could get the
setback waived, at great expense and pain, only to discover some other
reason why they couldn't allow it.
Possible answers:
1. There are lots of trees and not many towers.
Yes, and trees are not "artificial" and are considered more
aesthetically pleasing
2. It is generally recognized that trees fall and can cause damage
and even death. Society has accepted this risk. Not so for man made
structures like towers.
Precisely
3. It will probably take 35 years for the tree to reach 70 ft and
longer yet before it falls. The folks who planted it will be long
gone (no one around to sue).
There are plenty of trees of that height where I live and some
(particularly pines) have fallen in the wind, causing damage. They are,
at most, 18 years old (since that's when the tract was built). And yet,
they are still planted.
But at the end of the day, you're far more likely to experience
damage or injury from a tree than a tower.
Yeah, but it's considered more of an act of Nature.
And, if you are negligent in choosing your kind of tree, and more
particularly, in maintaining the tree, so as to cause it to be more
likely to fall over, you might be on the hook. THis is pretty common
with old oak trees in California where large branches falling off isn't
unusual. That branch falls on your neighbor's car or roof, and it's YOU
that will be likely to pay for it.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|