You can't fly over a forest fire or an airport because you cannot be closer than 9 kilometres. You can't fly a drone at an altitude of 9 kilometres, so that takes care of that. That's not the case with a building. If you can't fly over a building they would have said just that or made the altitude restriction match the distance restriction.....IE cannot be closer than 75 metres and cannot fly above 75 metres. No ambiguity there. They could just word it the way you seem to read it.... the no-fly zone is an imaginary cylinder enveloping a building, with radius of 75 metres and an infinite height.....but they didn't. If indeed that is the intent then it is poorly worded especially since they are urging people to call 911 if they see these rules being broken.
Edited by Langford Rat, 18 March 2017 - 08:06 AM.