Outside Antennas / HOA's

[AE7BF]

And that's what I want to hear.

I do not live in a HOA controlled area, however I do have covenants, codes and restrictions I agreed to. If I moved into a nice neighbor hood that didn't allow tall towers, big antennas, etc. and was paying dues to the HOA, then an amateur showed up, thumbed his nose at the rules and put them up, I'd be annoyed. If the government comes along and said that the rules we all agreed to when we moved in were suddenly null and void for one special group, I'd probably fight it pretty hard.
I don't like the "slippery slope" argument, but I can see where someone else might be able to apply it here. Why would one group of hobbyists be allowed to ignore the rules that they agreed to when they moved in, but a guy who likes to collect cars can't? After all, it's a hobby. And, please, don't use the "emergency communications" argument. That one doesn't fly anymore.

Laws like this are dangerous.

Well for the last 10-15 years (I forget the exact year) the telecom act has essentially allowed cell phone carriers to bypass local restrictions on zoning and told local governments that essentially they had a set time to review but couldn't deny applications. Now most carriers don't force the issue but essentially the feds said they control communications licensing and that outside building permits local jurisdictions don't have the power to set rules.

Wouldn't it essentially be the same thing for the feds to say that the FCC alone licenses amateur radio communications and that local groups have no power to set rules governing amateur communications?

 

[AK9R]

However, the big, bad government opened the door with the OTARD rules for OTA antennas and small satellite dishes. OTARD almost completely overrides private land contracts. I'm sure that the broadcasters and satellite providers lobbied Congress pretty heavily to get them to force the FCC to implement OTARD. I'm glad they did, otherwise, I wouldn't be able to put up a DirecTV dish and would have to subscribe to cable TV (granted, AT&T Uverse is now an option in my neighborhood, though it wasn't when I moved in).

So, one well-funded special interest group was given special privileges in direct contravention to HOA rules. Now, we have a less-well-funded and much smaller special interest group asking the government for similar protection. One of my neighbors wanted to raise chickens in a coop in their backyard. This sort of thing is not allowed by the CCRs, but what's stopping chicken aficionados from lobbying Congress to get a law passed which overrides the CCRs. As you say, it's a slippery slope.

 

[AK9R]

Well for the last 10-15 years (I forget the exact year) the telecom act has essentially allowed cell phone carriers to bypass local restrictions on zoning and told local governments that essentially they had a set time to review but couldn't deny applications.

Can you provide a citation for this? I'm pretty sure my local town's zoning board told Verizon more than once that they couldn't put a tower in a particular location because it didn't conform to the town's development ordinance. Verizon eventually solved the problem by moving their proposed tower about a thousand feet so it'd be outside town limits.

 

[pb_lonny]

I am REALLY glad that here in Australia this is not so much of an issue.

 

[jim202]

Some years back when I lived in a different town, I had some words with the local HOA. First of all they had some wording about how many trees you could cut down on your property. I had a corner wooded lot with many pine trees really near the house. I started cutting them down to protect my house from falling branches and the tree itself. The HOA never came to me, but called the state complaining I was logging on my property. The state politely told them there had to be 5 acres or more to be considered a logging operation. So that shut down that problem.

Everything was fine until I cut down this 3 foot diameter tree by my front door on a Saturday. I got a visit from the local HOA group on Sunday. We had a talk and they told me I can't cut down any trees on my property over 2 inches in diameter. Asked them to hang on while I went and got my deed. On it, there was a very clear statement that I could cut down 20 percent of the trees on my property per the HOA. They tried to tell me that they changed the requirement. Told them it wasn't on my deed.

So I got out a blank piece of paper and drew a map. One of them asked what I was doing. Told them I was drawing a map to the court house. I wanted to make sure they didn't get lost trying to find their way there. Then they asked me why. Told them that I wanted the HOA to sue me for cutting down the trees on my property. Plus when they lost, they would be paying my legal costs and time lost in wages defending their frivolous issue. Never heard from them again.

Many of these people that are on the HOA board, think they control the world. They generally come from a big city and didn't like it there. So when they moved to the sub division where they created this HOA, they wanted to run it just like the city was run. Many of them are on ego trips and have almost zero knowledge as to what they are really doing. They don't understand any legal ramifications on what they are doing. When you tell them the are going to end up loosing and have to pay legal expenses and lost wages, they tend to think twice about what they are doing.

I always composted my leaves when I lived in this sub division. But someone thought because I had a big pile of leaves that I had not moved off of my lawn that I was going to burn them. The EPA guy showed up all concerned that there was a smoke problem that I was causing. I asked him to walk my yard and show me where I had been burning any leaves. He couldn't find any place. He showed up 2 more times over the course of a month. The last time I had a talk with him and got him to tell me who his supervisor was and a phone number for that individual. After he gave me the information, he had second thoughts and asked why I wanted the information. Told him on Monday I was calling that person and filing a harassment complaint. Told him this was the 3rd time he was on my property trying to give me a hard time. If he showed up again I would call the sheriff and have him arrested for trespassing on my property. Never had any more problems with the EPA showing up again.

I do hope the new law proposed to reduce the control over ham antennas and limit HOA control does pass. It will be the first step in reining in these nuts from the city. Letting the FCC become part of the controlling body over antennas will be a good move.

The other part of this problem is to get the ham radio operators become part of the input to the HOA restriction process. If your not involved, you can't complain.

The other part of this issue is like many have said. If there is an HOA on the property your looking to purchase and you don't like it, don't buy there. If you don't ask about any HOA, then you have no grounds to complain about what your about to limit your antenna activity with.

 

[mmckenna]

Well for the last 10-15 years (I forget the exact year) the telecom act has essentially allowed cell phone carriers to bypass local restrictions on zoning and told local governments that essentially they had a set time to review but couldn't deny applications. Now most carriers don't force the issue but essentially the feds said they control communications licensing and that outside building permits local jurisdictions don't have the power to set rules.

In simple terms, it says that a local government cannot deny a carrier application based off reasonable RF levels. This was basically to stop local governments from using fear as a tool to stop roll out of cellular networks. It doesn't mean that the carriers get to do whatever they want. Recently AT&T wanted to drop a full cell site adjacent to my son's elementary school. Lot's a farm fields nearby, but no, they had to put it right next to the school. While I work around RF and understand exposure, this was a no brainer from the start, and was happy it got shot down. Likely it was a tactical move by AT&T to make the second choice look better.

 

[N4DES]

I just put mine on public notice not too long ago that we have numerous items in the docs that are currently in violation of State and Federal law (if enforced) and I also caught them doing "selective enforcement" due to them attempting to change the by-law wording in an enforcement letter.

It took the wind out of their sails and they have calmed them down some as they had been pointing out homeowner violations and doing public humiliation on Facebook.

They also recently put in speed bumps, where our doc's clearly prohibit them, and call them "traffic calming zones". So the board just violated its own rules yet expects the homeowner to abide to a different set of standards.

As to the original topic, I have a multi-use support structure in the backyard that is covered by OTARD. It also supports some amateur antennas and my other amateur antennas are in my attic.

73

 

[N9JIG]

Most areas with deed restrictions, HOA'a and CCR's have a mechanism built in so as to allow them to be changed from time to time. They also provide a method for variations from the restrictions with approval and cause. Getting an outside antenna however is unlikely to be one of them absent the Parity Act.

I do have some of the same reservations as W9BU does, namely will this devolve into other special interests demanding similar requests to violate a private contract entered willingly between two parties. As much as I want to have better antennas at my home, one of the reasons I bought here is that it is a strict HOA and then enforce specific rules and has a procedure set up to control appearance and use of the exteriors.

I followed the procedures and got approval for several improvements to my home. I expect my neighbors to do the same. In return the homes in my neighborhood are beautiful, nicely maintained, there are no outlandish colors, McMansions (oversized houses on too small lots) or other ugliness around here. On the other side of the coin however, when I paint my house this fall I have to paint it the same color as it was or ask approval from the HOA for a different color. They have a specific palette that I can choose from and they may or may not approve of my choice, depending on how many houses in my immediate area are already that color. I have to have a certain amount of trees on my property and when they drop seeds or leaves I have to be sure they are cleaned up in a reasonable time and kept trim.

Sometimes it sucks, but I signed the dotted line, knowing what I was in store for before I made the largest purchase of my life. If I wasn't prepared to do that and live under these types of restrictions I could have bought elsewhere for a lot less money. There is another community nearby similar in style to mine that has lesser restrictions and allows towers and roof antennas but the houses are older and smaller. We looked there and the wife wanted new. I wanted to live with the wife. I was a good husband and did what the wife told me, much for the same reason as "thecop" detailed earlier. She lived with my job of nights, weekends, holidays and long days for decades, it is her turn. If that means dealing with an HOA and no tower, so be it.

We do not want the government unreasonably telling us what we can and cannot do. If we sign a contract with someone like an HOA and give them the right to control some portions of the use of our property why should the government be able to step in and regulate that?

 

[N4DES]

Well for the last 10-15 years (I forget the exact year) the telecom act has essentially allowed cell phone carriers to bypass local restrictions on zoning and told local governments that essentially they had a set time to review but couldn't deny applications.

Not true as there is no "bypassing local restrictions". Municipalities and counties can still require towers to be in industrial and/or commercial areas and not adjacent or in areas such as Planned Unit Developments (PUD's). I have been in recent discussions with the local power company and their interest in allowing for additional pole attachments by carriers. While the County can't stop them from installing poles that allow for the installation of cellular equipment, the carrier is still required to pull the applicable permits to allow for the installation. If the permit request doesn't conform to the County's tower ordinance it will be denied and the pole will not be populated.

 

[AE7BF]

Can you provide a citation for this? I'm pretty sure my local town's zoning board told Verizon more than once that they couldn't put a tower in a particular location because it didn't conform to the town's development ordinance. Verizon eventually solved the problem by moving their proposed tower about a thousand feet so it'd be outside town limits.

It's section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications act and the biggest problem with it is that cell companies don't use it. Why don't they use it well your example is the primary reason, they can move 1000 feet and be outside the city limits. Usually the carriers will move to another location that is easier because it is faster, they don't like to tie up capital dollars on a project that will take a long time to get done which makes sense but now most jurisdictions when presented with a section 704 argument will back down because they'll lose.

I successfully used it in Portland, OR about 10 years ago and beat back a whole lot of lunacy on a particular site because we didn't have a good alternative option. Took a year and a half because the city drug it's feet at every stage and finally hearings officer when presented with the law ruled on our behalf and the city attorney wouldn't let them appeal because federal law was clear and admitted they'd lose.

@N4DES
Actually any ordinance that specifies that cell towers have to be in only industrial areas is not legal under section 704 of the telecommunications act. Yes they can require building permits all day long but they can't deny. Doesn't mean they won't try and it doesn't mean that the carrier won't take the easy route if they have one and avoid the battle.

Edit:
Also Section 332 provides that the regulation of construction, placement or modification of a cellular facility may not operate so as to prohibit the provision of personal wireless services. Essentially they make you screen it, paint it, even put up towers that look like fake trees but they can not prohibit.

 

[N9JIG]

At the risk of veering off topic a bit here...

Since I moved to Arizona a couple years ago from Illinois I noticed that a huge percentage of the cellular towers here are disguised or adaptive to other uses. Commonly they are camouflaged as palm trees, church steeples and other tall things or attached to light or electric poles etc. This was very unusual in Illinois, at least compared to the situation here.

To bring this back to the original topic, that is something that we can learn from. Come up with enterprising ideas like flagpole or vent antennas, hidden wire antennas, as well as other types of "hide in plain sight" ideas. Work within the rules agreed to. The entire nature about hobby radio is to do as much as you can with what you have. Don't have a lot of money? Buy used or inexpensive gear. Live in a restrictive environment? Work around the restrictions and see what you can have.

 

[AE7BF]

At the risk of veering off topic a bit here...

Since I moved to Arizona a couple years ago from Illinois I noticed that a huge percentage of the cellular towers here are disguised or adaptive to other uses. Commonly they are camouflaged as palm trees, church steeples and other tall things or attached to light or electric poles etc. This was very unusual in Illinois, at least compared to the situation here.

Yes up here in the Pacific Northwest they're disguised as pine trees. Before I retired from AT&T I flatly refused to build them because they add 50% to the cost of building a site and create safety problems for crews working on them. In a couple of cases I argued that a city requiring them was essentially making it cost prohibitive which had the effect of violating section 332 and won. Still had to paint the tower an ugly shade of brown but that was a small price to pay.

Now local teams are staffed with kids that don't know the law and just bend over when a city tells them they can't do something or they have to do stupid things like build fake trees that look nothing like real trees.

 

[WPXS472]

I was told once that the proliferation of remote bases on mountain tops in Southern California was because of restrictions on antennas. That, and I suspect the range was a lot better from up there. A local city here enacted a rather severe tower ordinance some years back. Made it just about impossible to erect any kind of structure to mount an antenna on. At the time, my ex wife worked for the local 911 district doing addressing. She only addressed in the county, not the city. On more than one occasion, she was told to address a cell tower that was clearly "in town." When she actually checked the location, it was in the county, not the city, even though it was surrounded by the city. I lived in town for a while. At first, I thought it was ok, but got to hate it after a while. I live in the country now and my closest neighbors on either side are between a quarter and half mile away, and that is too close. One of my sons lives in Arizona in some sort of development. A small bush started to grow in his yard. When it got to be maybe 8 feet tall and a half inch in diameter at the base, his HOA sent him a letter telling him it had to go. I couldn't live like that.

 

[SCPD]

In my humble assessment, this discussion comes down to whether you want more intrusive Federal Government into your lives. As others have aptly pointed out, where does something like this stop? The Slippery Slope.
.
HOA’s, Heaven knows, can be filled with little tin pot despots on their ego trips to clean up Dodge.. But they are small organizations- and residents that live in these communities have enter’d into contracts with them to abide by the rules. Contracts have remedies, and in these case, far easier to address than going to the Feds. Do you really want a one-size-fits-all Federal law?
.
I know some hams that live in these restrictive neighborhoods. One in particular, chose to work within his system. He worked and got himself elected HOA president, then proposed to his community a modest accommodation for ham antennas, and got their approval.
And I know others that have said its just not worth it, and live with the restrictions.
Then too, you can also go to local law and make a A** of yourself in the neighborhood. People will just love your eating up their HOA dues defending against your private, snotty little court battle.

To me this is a no-brainer- if you want to live in that neighborhood, play nice- you knew the rules- now abide them (including, especially- working from within to change them if you are so motivated.) But you don't want to?? then Don’t move there, or find another place to live… but don’t whine about it and, for crying out loud, Don’t make a Federal Case out of it.*
.
Taking this a step further, the last election was about further intrusions of the Federal Government into private citizen‘s lives. The United States is sick and tired of it.
.
Today radio hams ask for special dispensation for their hobby- tomorrow it will be the amateur goat breeders an antique garbage truck collectors seeking government relief…**
.
(laughing) “See you in Federal Court, Comrade Neighbors…..”
.

.
.
………………………………...CF
.
______________________________________________
** http://democracythemepark.org/making-a-federal-case-out-of-it/ -- interest'd in history?... here's the saying's origin

** yes, yes--- a gross exaggeration; call me the Hyperbole Cowgirl…………

 

[mmckenna]

He worked and got himself elected HOA president, then proposed to his community a modest accommodation for ham antennas, and got their approval.

Exactly what my dad did when he moved into an HOA controlled community.
No one wanted to be president of the HOA. He's retired, so he took it on. Since others in my family own two of the other houses in the HOA, it worked out pretty well. Since most residents pay the HOA dues but never bother to attend the meetings, it's pretty easy to keep things sane and under control. There is no dictatorship when the HOA board is open to anyone who wants to apply.

Sure, their are nut-job home owners that lodge stupid complaints. One home owner wanted the HOA to stop the airplanes from flying overhead.

So, 70 something year old retired guy runs the HOA. Pretty much making sure the common areas owned by the HOA get looked after, street lights get fixed, roads get maintained.
Only time they had to flex their muscle was when lazy homeowners would park their cars in the fire lanes. After a few warnings, call the towing company and issue resolved.

The rest of the time it's trying to figure out what to do with the excess funds.

I wonder how many people that complain about HOA's ever bothered to inquire how to get on the HOA board and make some changes, rather than just complaining?

 

[k6cpo]

For our friends in Florida the 1 senator referenced above was Bill Nelson who will be up for reelection in 2018. Regardless of politics or any potential flaws in the legislation you need to know that Senator Nelson is staunchly opposed to you having the right to decide what legal things you can do with your property.

No one person should have that much power in our congress. The ability of one person to stop legislation when the majority of the congress is in favor of it is wrong.

 

[SCPD]

Quoted from K6CPO--
.
“No one person should have that much power in our congress. The ability of one person to stop legislation when the majority of the congress is in favor of it is wrong”


Oh Wow- don’t get me going there- Federal Powers?---- how about one Federal judge from Washington State and the 9th Circuit Court?.. for starters.
.
Sorry Guys, I don’t want to stray far-a field here. This Parity bill just plain goes against my grain- I am sure the Founder’s when they wrote the Constitution never envisioned the Federal Government getting involved in individual property rights… let alone hobby radio antennas. How is it right for one senator from Florida, representing the constituents in his state, -should he instead vote favorably to the Parity bill,- have the power to force me in New Mexico, imposing on my HOA*- how we deal with antennas on our private property? The Fed’s are too intrusive in all our lives….. Start by thinking the 10th Amendment-
.
I now relinquish my remain time back to the Chair ……
.
(more smiles) … and I’ll refrain from anymore Constitutional debate-- this is about radio, isn’t- I get distracted....... I promise!....really!...(grining!)
.
……………………………..CF
.
.
__________________________________________
*Hypothetical- I mercifully don’t live in HOA neighborhood

 

[AE7BF]

Quoted from K6CPO--
.
“No one person should have that much power in our congress. The ability of one person to stop legislation when the majority of the congress is in favor of it is wrong”


Oh Wow- don’t get me going there- Federal Powers?---- how about one Federal judge from Washington State and the 9th Circuit Court?.. for starters.
.
Sorry Guys, I don’t want to stray far-a field here. This Parity bill just plain goes against my grain- I am sure the Founder’s when they wrote the Constitution never envisioned the Federal Government getting involved in individual property rights… let alone hobby radio antennas. How is it right for one senator from Florida, representing the constituents in his state, -should he instead vote favorably to the Parity bill,- have the power to force me in New Mexico, imposing on my HOA*- how we deal with antennas on our private property? The Fed’s are too intrusive in all our lives….. Start by thinking the 10th Amendment-
.
I now relinquish my remain time back to the Chair ……
.
(more smiles) … and I’ll refrain from anymore Constitutional debate-- this is about radio, isn’t- I get distracted....... I promise!....really!...(grining!)
.
……………………………..CF
.
.
__________________________________________
*Hypothetical- I mercifully don’t live in HOA neighborhood

Believe me I am not in favor of federal power but I am also certain the founders never thought any reasonable thinking person would allow their neighbors to decide what I can do with my property.

The current legislation as written isn't perfect by any stretch but individual liberty and property rights should come first.

 

[SCPD]

Actually, the Founder's would agree with you N6WBF- they fought to protect individual rights, but they did not consider it a role of the Federal Government to regulate the individual- this is the purview of the "Several States."
This is not to say that you can do what you please with your property. Zoning, building codes, health regulations- for starters... but these are not Federal issues- and never were intend'd to be. These are regulated by the States and their various local governments.
.
The 10th Ammendent.
.

Remember, what government can give you, it can take away. And if as you said:
"The current legislation as written isn't perfect by any stretch but individual liberty and property rights should come first."
It makes me shudder- imperfect legislation is a deadly threat to individual liberty. Can we say The Affordable Care Act??
.
I did promise not to get politically, didn't I?...oh well, I was grinning when I said that....
.
.
.............................CF

 

[AE7BF]

Actually, the Founder's would agree with you N6WBF- they fought to protect individual rights, but they did not consider it a role of the Federal Government to regulate the individual- this is the purview of the "Several States."
This is not to say that you can do what you please with your property. Zoning, building codes, health regulations- for starters... but these are not Federal issues- and never were intend'd to be. These are regulated by the States and their various local governments.

Remember, what government can give you, it can take away. And if as you said:
"The current legislation as written isn't perfect by any stretch but individual liberty and property rights should come first."
It makes me shudder- imperfect legislation is a deadly threat to individual liberty. Can we say The Affordable Care Act??
.
I did promise not to get politically, didn't I?...oh well, I was grinning when I said that....
.
.
.............................CF

LOL in fairness not entirely your fault as I drug you back to the political discussion kicking and screaming.

I get what you mean though, I seem to remember the phrase "you have to pass it before you can read what's in it."