I was advised by a Finnish ham that the rules are a lot
looser for temporary
structures - and the tower is only bolted to the house and
is therefore 'temporary'

Maybe worth a try?
:-)

Murray

Alan Beagley wrote:

You mean that the insurer will require the installation to be inspected
and a certificate of safety be issued, even though the only body with
the authority to do this (i.e., the township's building dept.) does not
require it and might refuse to do it even if asked?

-=-
Alan AB2OS

On 09/20/03 10:33 pm Richard Clark put fingers to keyboard and launched
the following message into cyberspace:

I am fully intending to follow the tower manufacturer's specifications
for the footing, so I don't see why that should worry the insurer.

It won't worry any insurer, they will simply walk away from a claim;
if one walks the others will ask why. If none can be found to replace
the first, then the bank will call the full note due. All rather
typical legalese in the fine print. An attorney is as likely to be
ignorant of these as anyone unless their specialty is real estate law
(I visited one with exactly that point of experience, spent less too
by spending more once.)

--
************************************************** ****************
* Murray Kelly vk4aok
*
* 6 Spyglass Place, Oxley Ridge QLD. 4075.
Australia *
* ph/fax Intl+ 61 7 3879
7968 *
************************************************** ****************