Having bought several new towers, I've found that manufacturer's will
typically charge a fee for a wet seal stamp for any state other than the
state of manufacture. Professional Engineers are licensed by states, and
you'll likely need one from the state where you live.
Not all places use the IBC. Florida has our own building code - the Florida
Building Code - because of our unique geography and geology, and we're a
big populous state.
Whether or not you pull a permit, or there's any enforcement where you
live, I assure you that any structure is subject to building codes. Why
wouldn't it be? Did you build your house without a permit? Why not?
How does a government ensure that your structure is within "striking
distance" whatever that means, and is on a "sufficient size property"
whatever that means? The answer is that you apply for a permit and someone
who knows the rules examines these things and issues you a permit - or
denies it.
Building permits are how you enforce rules. Yes, you can build this. No,
you can't.
If there weren't these safeguards, the US would be like Haiti or Mexico,
where buildings built without stringent code shook apart during earthquakes.
Good luck. Get a permit - that way there's no neighbor complaining that you
"didn't get a permit" and forcing you to take it down. Yes, it happens!
73,
Mickey N4MB
Mickey Baker, N4MB
Palm Beach Gardens
*“Tell me, and I will listen. Show me, and I will understand. Involve me,
and I will learn.” *Teton Lakota, American Indian Saying.
On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 4:57 PM, bear <bear@bearlabs.com> wrote:
> Wow.
>
> Onerous, imho.
>
> Wondering if amateur towers in fact are subject to the IBC?
> Are they "telecommunication towers"? Those being commercial.
>
> I can understand the requirement, IF the tower in question is somehow
> within "striking distance"
> to people/other structures. But in the instance where the tower sits off
> at some distance from same,
> and on a sufficiently sized private property (is there such a thing as
> private property??) and the owner carries adequate liability insurance,
> what's the point?
>
> Well I know the argument that will come back, but it makes a tower into "a
> rich man's game"... not exactly
> fair, imho.
>
> _-_-
>
> PS. IF I was buying the tower *new, *I'd insist that the mfr get the "wet
> stamp" up to date... or some other persuasive document to me.
>
> On 10/8/2017 2:59 PM, Mickey Baker wrote:
>
> Quick explanation of how your building code affects your tower permit from
> a city government point of view.
>
> Building codes generally specify the requirements for construction of
> structures to withstand risks at whatever location something needs to be
> built. Generally, amateurs are sensitive to wind load requirements as a
> limiting factor as to what can be built where. We should also be realistic
> and conservative as to what wind load we attach to towers. Every set of
> engineered plans for a tower that I've seen have a set of calculations for
> the wind load presented by the tower itself and a design wind load.
>
> The IBC and most other building codes specify structural requirements for
> certain types of buildings. The IBC classifies Towers as "Miscellaneous and
> Utility Group U" structures. You'll find this in Chapter 3 of the 2012 IBC,
> p 312.1. Specific structural/wind load requirements are in Chapter 16.
>
> A licensed professional engineer would need to examine the tower
> construction, come up with a structural analysis and perhaps certify that
> your tower meets the code that your municipality requires.
>
> If you have a certification of an older code for the same tower, this will
> be a good place to start and might save you money in hiring an engineer to
> certify compliance to the new code, particularly if you have the detailed
> structural analysis.
>
> Generally, building officials that work in a municipality are not
> officially qualified to determine if an old code is the same as a new code.
> Some of them are indeed, PE's, but the service that a building department
> offers is to examine plans for sufficiency - compliance to code, not to
> discern differences in current vs. older versions of building codes for new
> construction.
>
> You can go in and argue that the "new code is the same as the old code"
> all day long, show them texts from the code, etc., but until they have a
> licensed professional agree with you by stamping your plans and certifying
> it as such, you're not likely to get a permit.
>
> My advice - find the PE who originally certified the plans and pay him/her
> to certify to the standards you're seeking. $500 is cheap.
>
> I'm not a PE, but I am the CIO of a city government and have been through
> this myself several times as a ham - yes, I pull permits, and yes I pay for
> the stamp. It isn't that the building department doesn't want to help you,
> it is that they are constrained by their legal requirements to issue a
> structural permit and open the government to potential liability if they
> divert from the code.
>
> Resistance is futile. Get a wet seal PE stamp and build your tower.
>
> 73,
>
> Mickey N4MB
>
>
> Mickey Baker, N4MB
> Palm Beach Gardens
> *“Tell me, and I will listen. Show me, and I will understand. Involve me,
> and I will learn.” *Teton Lakota, American Indian Saying.
>
> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 1:00 PM, bear <bear@bearlabs.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm ignorant of this IBC thing.
>> So aside from the idea that it OUGHT to be called the /Intra/national
>> Building Code, and Wikipedia
>> says they picked "International" because it was applied to some
>> juristictions outside of the USA...
>> (which makes little sense to me) I downloaded the 2012 copy from
>> Archive.org.
>>
>> Nothing in there makes a reference to antennas or towers.
>>
>> Is there another version that does?
>>
>> _-_-
>>
>> On 10/7/2017 12:00 PM, towertalk-request@contesting.com wrote:
>>
>>> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 12:02:30 -0700
>>> From: Raymond Benny<rayn6vr@gmail.com>
>>> To: Tower Talk<TowerTalk@contesting.com>,
>>> "CADXA_SHARE1@yahoogroups.com" <CADXA_SHARE1@yahoogroups.com>
>>> Subject: [TowerTalk] Wet samp for TX455 USTower
>>> Message-ID:
>>> <CAHv=PBFCtwJfSRK+643AgNZ+C90-L_MTBkKKcr8NnAkXisvT5g@mail.gm
>>> ail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I'm looking for a wet stamped UST TX455 set of plans for IBC 2012, any
>>> state.
>>>
>>> The UST website has a wet stamped plan for IBC 2006, my County has asked
>>> me
>>> for an IBC 2012 set. I am hoping they might accept another State copy. At
>>> least I can give it a try. UST did sent me their IBC 2012, but it is not
>>> stamped.
>>>
>>> I told my local Building & Safety Dept that it would cost $500 or more
>>> for
>>> an Arizona copy. They have been flexible in the past, so I'm hoping they
>>> will be lenient again.
>>>
>>> 73 & thanks for any help,
>>>
>>> Ray,
>>> N6VR
>>> Chino Valley, AZ
>>>
>>
>> --
>> -- bearlabs.com --
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
|