Well like many Hams that have non-ham wives it's very hard to tell the
XYL she can't have that house she's dreamed of because we can't put up
an antenna, at least not this OM's XYL.
I am in the stage of looking at property south-west of Atlanta, most if
not all of the new sub-divisions have some verbage or wording that
restricts any kind of antenna, however, after several interesting
discussions with builders I found that most of the HOA's and
Architectural committees are under control of the developers until the
sub-division is completed, thats how the developers protect themselves
from Owner controlled HOA's and changes that would cost them (Developer
and Builder) money. That's the magic word.
I started talking to one specific builder about six months ago before
the current slow down in the homes market and was flat told "No
antennas" about 1-month ago after being persistent I was told we will
need to check if the Developer will allow it and amend the CCR's or
provide a change via the architectural committee. Two weeks ago I got a
call from the builder stating that I can get the variance to erect a
tower on the back of a specific lot (heavily Treed lot that is) and use
what I had originally suggested which is a crank up US tower
(needle-pole style) Since most of the trees are from 20 to 40ft I
submitted a 22ft to 55ft cranked up with a SteppIR on top and a double
extended 80 meter zepp on an acre of heavily wooded lot.
The builder wants to include the tower base in the cost of the home with
conduits for antenna cables and power from the house to the base as part
of the permit drawings, thus avoiding trouble down the road from the
local municipality. All of this will be done under the scrutiny of a
real estate lawyer.
I can attest that it is very difficult to find a new home, I am not a
wealthy individual but was willing to spend more to get the right kind
of property where antennas would not become a legal issue. It's been a
real hassle and several real estate agents have given up trying to find
that new home for me. One has stayed the course and you bet she will
get my business.
Right now in my opinion the market is right to get what we need if it is
a new home, with existing HOA's and firm CCR's then I would stay very
clear of them. I was looking at a great home with 2-acres and big trees
in all of the right places and for the right price where home owners
could have horses on there property but I found way down in the fine
print "No antennas except for satellite dishes of 18" or smaller" What
a disappointment. I currently live just outside of Orlando in a
restricted HOA but where antennas are not out-lawed. Amazing, there's
lots of hams in the community.
Unfortunately this issue is not going away unless the Fed's do it for
us, developers have the money to protect what they perceive as a
possible treat to their success, most by being uniformed, the only
reason for this restriction in the location I am looking at is "Hams
cause TV interference". . Bottom line, be persistent with positive
aspects of the need for an antenna as recommended by others, get to now
the builder and the developer, understand the home market and support
any bill with respect to HOA's-CCR-Deed restriction of antenna's.
Krish wrote:
> Folks,
> Let me give some more information on the situation.
> The covenant goes like this
> "All antenna requests will need to be approved by the Architectural review
> committee".
>
> If there is a request that comes along and is something that does not fit
> the bill, the Arch committe
> will deny the request and send it to the board to make a consideration.
>
> My original proposal had a stepper at the top of the crankup and a TV
> antenna at the bottom of
> the crankup. I sent in a copy of the 1996 OTARD ruling as well. The stepper
> was hand drawn
> in the proposal along with a copy of the aluma tower brochure. The Arch
> committee has never
> seen a setup like this, so was unable to perceive and they just denied it.
> Well, they did not even
> take up on my request to present it to the committee. In my subdivision, the
> arch committee is a
> inclusive group unknown to the public for fear of retribution. Hence my
> gripe that there was no
> fair consideration.
>
> Now the board is looking into the merits. In the meanwhile, i had someone
> measure the offset
> from the roof to the tower when the antenna is installed. We found that it
> will be entirely below
> the roof when down, and blend well with the trees behind the tower when
> cranked up.
>
> I ran around and got about 70% of the neighbors sign off. Some in person by
> knocking the door,
> but a few others by sending in mail with return postage. About 3 out of 5
> that i mailed never
> returned it. Perhaps procrastination or they have opinions. No one objected
> except one guy who
> does not see the tower and is a next door neighbor. He is located at the
> other side of the tower.
> When i ran the idea by him, he wanted the tower to be placed not near his
> property , but the
> other side. I complied and changed the proposal after getting the other
> owners permission. In
> Dec, this guy did not voice out any concern, but in April, he says he has
> concerns. I have over
> 70% approval from those directly impacted, so i have pushed it to the board.
> The board wants
> to do their due diligence and talk to the neighbors to see what they feel.
> However, this is a gray
> area. I don't know what they talk. I am sure they won't be talking about
> Otard and TV antennas.
>
> Hence i am doing everything right to keep a positive attitude after waiting
> for 3 months now. I am
> a solid contributor on the board. The board knows it and the people know it.
> Where the
> Arch committee falters, with trying to impose fines for compliance, i am out
> there working with
> people the friendly way and working out the differences to achieve
> compliance. I hate this
> anonymous Arch committee crap. But they say that people won't volunteer
> after the several
> lawsuits they have had over the years.
>
> 73's
> Krish
> w4vku
>
> Dan Zimmerman N3OX wrote:
>
>
>> WB2WIK says:
>>
>>
>>> however none of them had any CC&Rs or HOAs involved
>>>
>> Steve, thanks for chiming in... I hadn't thought about that, though it
>> seems that Krish's HOA is considering allowing this installation even
>> though they could likely outvote him and reject it out of hand.
>>
>> W6WRT says, regarding promises of money:
>>
>>
>>> A person's or business's "word" is backed up my money all the time.
>>>
>> It's how our
>>
>>> civil justice system works, like it or not.
>>>
>> Absolutely, but the suggestion to put in writing that you'll make up
>> the difference in property values is essentially settling a number of
>> lawsuits that haven't yet been brought against you, and that seems a
>> little much to me!
>>
>> I agree with you, and with Steve, and you can be sure that the YL and
>> I are staying faaaaaar away from HOA-encumbered properties when it's
>> time to buy. That said, it sounds like Krish has a shot at convincing
>> the board to allow a reasonable installation within the regulatory
>> framework of his HOA, which is something that absolutely should be
>> encouraged.
>>
>> When the HOA says "No, you cannot put up a tower, period," that's when
>> the suggestion to just move is appropriate.
>>
>> Dan
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|