What do you think are "reasonable" antenna accomodations by developers and HOAs?

[N4UM]

This thread is not for those of you who think hams should avoid HOA's at all costs and deserve to suffer accordingly should they be stupid enough to move into one. If that's the way you feel - that's perfectly fine and you're certainly entitled to that opinion. Just skip this thread and move on to someplace else. If you're sick of reading about antenna restrictions and HOA/developer stuff, feel free to also move on as well.

We are about as close as we may ever expect to come with regard to getting HOAs and developers to make "reasonable accomodations" for amateur antennas. What do you realistically think are "reasonable accomodations." What sort of guidelines would you suggest in order to determine the "reasonableness" of accomodations. What sort of safety considerations should be involved. Esthetic considerations? Let's try to be "reasonable" by keeping rants to a minimum.

[K9STH]

My subdivision has a Home Owners' Association but they have no CC&Rs to enforce. However, the City of Richardson (Texas) has an "unreasonable" ordinance: You can't go over 100 feet above ground in a residential neighborhood without getting a variance! :cool:

This subdivision was the "in" neighborhood around Dallas for quite a number of years and property is still very desirable. Professional sports figures (i.e. Dallas Cowboys quarterback Rodger Staubach lived down the hill and around the corner from me), television personalities, entertainers, etc., all lived/still live in this neighborhood. There are several large antenna arrays and virtually no one objects to them. I have some neighbors who tell me that if I move I have to leave at least my main tower! It seems that the tower is the landmark by which they tell their friends how to find their house!

Only the newest neighborhoods in the city have CC&Rs. About 80-percent of the neighborhoods only have the city zoning to worry about. When the tower ordinance was passed (early 1960s) there were basically 2 major companies in the city, Collins Radio and Texas Instruments, and all but one of the city council members held amateur radio operator's licenses! As such, the city government was very favorable to amateur radio operators.

Unfortunately, many people believe that the higher the antenna the more likely RFI will be when the exact opposite is true. That is, the higher the antenna the less likely RFI.

The truth be known, I believe that the majority, probably the vast majority, of people do not object to antennas. But, there are those who want every home to look exactly like every other home and therein come the problems.

Glen, K9STH

[WB2WIK]

I think reasonable accommodation would be:

-Antennas restricted in height to 20' above the tallest approved structure on the lot
-Three such installations maximum per lot
-Installations subject to safety inspection by a registered/licensed professional engineer
-Installations subject to grounding requirements per NFPA/NEC
-Homeowner accepts liability for any damage to other owner's properties or any common properties in the event of system failure; homeowner responsible for insurance coverage on installed systems to verify probable compliance with the liability

These seem fairly reasonable to me and would allow a ham to actually work several bands with unobtrusive antenna systems, while protecting neighbors' rights.

[K6OK]

"Reasonable accomodations" will vary tremendously from ham to ham and from one housing development to another. The absolute worse outcome is to come up with any national standard, such as "a dipole no higher than 30 feet" or "one vertical no higher than 30 feet", etc. etc. What will work for someone in a small townhouse vs. someone on 1-acre ranchettes are vastly different.

Instead what should be done is to develop a library of sample reports or documents that could be used by the individual ham to justify their own particular case. Example A might be a report that justifies a vertical on the roof or patio of a condo. Example B might justify a 70-foot tower for a homeowner on a 10,000 sq ft lot. And so on.

There is no single "cookie cutter" answer to all CCR/HOA situations.

WB2WIK wrote: "Antennas restricted in height to 20' above the tallest approved structure on the lot"

Too restrictive for the reasons I state above. There are many large lot HOA subdivisions where a tower and tribander would be reasonable. We need to be careful not to "sell out" the hams who have the room and space to put in a tower. I would vigorously oppose any single height number imposed at the national or state level. 73 Jim K6OK

[NA0AA]

That's the problem, there's no one solution. I would say that you almost need to divide by lot size.

Up to 1/4 acre: Wire antennas, verticals, nothing over 20' above building

1/4 to 3/4 acre: allows a tower up to ???? feet

3/4 acre and up: more than one tower.

I dunno, it's really hard to have any one plan fit all.

[WB2WIK]

Here's an actual copy of how one local HOA neighborhood in my area handled this:


5-12-4: REGULATION OF AMATEUR RADIO STATION ANTENNAS:
A. Site Plan Review Required. The proposed installation of
an amateur radio station antenna in any zoning district must
be preceded by an application for site plan review in
accordance with Chapter 2H of Title 5 of this Code, and, if
the application is approved, a building permit must be
obtained.
B. Application for Site Plan Review. In addition to the
requirements set forth in Chapter 2H of Title 5 of this Code,
the application for site plan review must include the
following:
1. Construction drawings that show the proposed method of
installation and the manufacturer's specifications.
2. A plot plan showing the proposed location and dimensions
of the amateur radio station antenna.
AFS\HH\5.12 Hidden Hills Municipal Code V-12-6
3. Engineering data evidencing that the amateur radio
station antenna will be in compliance with all structural
requirements of the Building Code.
4. Copies of all licenses issued to the applicant by the
FCC to engage in amateur radio service operations and to use
the site as an amateur radio station.
C. Factors Considered in the Site Plan Review Process.
1. In conducting site plan review for a proposed amateur
radio station antenna, the reviewing authority must consider
the following factors:
a. The proposed height of the amateur radio station
antenna, and the applicant's representations as to the
technological necessity of that height to engage in amateur
radio service operations of the nature contemplated.
b. Proximity of the proposed amateur radio station antenna
to inhabited buildings and structures.
c. The nature of existing uses on adjacent and nearby
properties.
d. Surrounding topography, tree coverage, and foliage, and
their effect on the proposed height of the amateur radio
station antenna.
e. Design of the proposed amateur radio station antenna,
with particular reference to design features that provide for
retraction of the antenna when not in use and design features
that may reduce or eliminate visual obtrusiveness,
particularly in residential zones.
2. In making any determination during the site plan review
process to deny or to condition the application for an amateur
radio station antenna, the reviewing authority must adhere to
the following guidelines:
a. The imposition of conditions or restrictions relating to
the placement, screening, or height of a proposed amateur
radio station antenna, which conditions or restrictions are
based upon protection of the public health, welfare, and
safety, aesthetic considerations, or the preservation of
property values, must be considered on a case-by-case basis,
taking into account the unique features of the proposed site,
the factors specified above in subsection 1, and the
reasonable accommodation required under subparagraph b below.
b. The site plan review process must be conducted so as to
(1) reasonably accommodate the paramount federal interest in
AFS\HH\5.12 Hidden Hills Municipal Code V-12-7
promoting amateur radio communications as voluntary,
noncommercial communications services, particularly with
respect to emergency communications; and (2) impose the
minimum practical restrictions, limitations, and conditions in
order to achieve the City's legitimate regulatory objectives.

That's for the community of Hidden Hills, CA (part of Los Angeles, in the northwest corner) and is verbatim.

Although rather lengthy reading, it's pretty "reasonable."

[NI7I]

I think WIK had the right idea. I would add that "reasonable" has a lot to do with the HOA and what they had in mind when they set up
the rules for the subdivision. If you are going to establish some sort of standard, you need input besides a group of hams to establish it.
I have found that there is nothing "reasonable" about hams attitudes toward restrictions to their pursuing their hobby. I am still of the
opinion that to avoid having your hobby curtailed by these rules, stay out of the HOA's.. There, I said the prohibited thing.. I'll go in peace now.

Lee
NI7I

[NN3W]

That's the problem, there's no one solution. I would say that you almost need to divide by lot size.

Up to 1/4 acre: Wire antennas, verticals, nothing over 20' above building



Why would you limit a 1/4 acre home to nothing over 20' above the building? I know a lot of 1/4 acre lots around here with 75 or 100 foot tall oaks and poplars.

[N8CPA]

I think WIK had the right idea. I would add that "reasonable" has a lot to do with the HOA and what they had in mind when they set up
the rules for the subdivision. If you are going to establish some sort of standard, you need input besides a group of hams to establish it.
I have found that there is nothing "reasonable" about hams attitudes toward restrictions to their pursuing their hobby. I am still of the
opinion that to avoid having your hobby curtailed by these rules, stay out of the HOA's.. There, I said the prohibited thing.. I'll go in peace now.

Lee
NI7I

Which is why I was so determined to find a neighborhood with no CC&R's, and so elated when this house went on the market the same week we accepted the offer on the old house. With 3 large, old trees, the only thing that would make the yard more antenna fertile would be underground utility drops.

[N8CPA]

I think WIK had the right idea. I would add that "reasonable" has a lot to do with the HOA and what they had in mind when they set up
the rules for the subdivision. If you are going to establish some sort of standard, you need input besides a group of hams to establish it.
I have found that there is nothing "reasonable" about hams attitudes toward restrictions to their pursuing their hobby. I am still of the
opinion that to avoid having your hobby curtailed by these rules, stay out of the HOA's.. There, I said the prohibited thing.. I'll go in peace now.

Lee
NI7I

Which is why I was so determined to find a neighborhood with no CC&R's, and so elated when this house went on the market the same week we accepted the offer on the old house. With 3 large, old trees, the only thing that would make the yard more antenna fertile would be underground utility drops.

[KD8DEY]

Which is why I was so determined to find a neighborhood with no CC&R's, and so elated when this house went on the market the same week we accepted the offer on the old house. With 3 large, old trees, the only thing that would make the yard more antenna fertile would be underground utility drops.
I see that your so excited that you just "had to say it twice" because you almost couldn't believe it yourself!! :)
Congrats

[K6OK]

Here's an actual copy of how one local HOA neighborhood in my area handled this:

(snip)

That's for the community of Hidden Hills, CA (part of Los Angeles, in the northwest corner) and is verbatim.

Although rather lengthy reading, it's pretty "reasonable."


Much better, thanks for sharing it. I like how it requires a balancing of the technological need for height vs. nearby buildings, aesthetics, etc. without having an arbitrary height limit. 73 Jim K6OK

[K1OIK]

Why would you limit a 1/4 acre home to nothing over 20' above the building? I know a lot of 1/4 acre lots around here with 75 or 100 foot tall oaks and poplars.

You think trees look like towers?

[NN3W]

You think trees look like towers?

Some do. The point for many on the height issue is not astetics but perceived belief that a tower would fall on ones house and do damage. A 70 foot tree weighs more than a tower.

[KF6ABU]

I just proposed the same to a condo in the area I was planning on moving into. It's a 4 story unit, and I would be on the 4th floor. I asked for a 9ft roof tower, 10ft mast, and 25ft boom yagi on the top of the unit about 45ft above ground. My Girlfriend is on the HOA board and it was unanimously approved. I have a letter stating here that my “Emergency Communications System” is approved with those specifications. So just get on the HOA board, and you can do what you’d like.

I had to sign something stating I would be responsible for any water damage to any units, and would have it inspected before we leave to make sure it’s fully sealed from weather and water.

[W3WN]

You think trees look like towers?Well, if you know where to look, there's a tower just off the Pa Turnpike east of King of Prussia, PA, that looks like a tree...

[KB5HAB]

In one neighborhood they had a nothing above the tallest point of the roof, no fence over 6 feet tall and no closer to the street than the front line of the house. No cars in the driveway or on the street excepting for gatherings...meaning no non working cars. It was all about the "looks" of the neighborhood. They especially were not harmonius with radio operators. Sad thing was they didn't want interference from CB operators and lumped everything into that basket. The association finally disbanded and then the only thing that had to be satisfied were city, county, state, and federal regs. The neighborhood turned into a dump within a year. Reasonable has many different definitions and what is reasonable to one is horribly wrong to another. Good luck

[AC0H]

Some do. The point for many on the height issue is not astetics but perceived belief that a tower would fall on ones house and do damage. A 70 foot tree weighs more than a tower.
The 70' tree is covered by your homeowners insurance from a liability perspective.
Your 70' tower might not be.
Whatever happened to "if the tower fails it should land totally on your property" axiom?
Are people really proposing siting towers right on the property line in sub-divisions?

[K1MAL]

You beat me to it AC0H.. "if the tower(*) fails it should land totally on your property" is what I consider reasonable. My neighbors are idiots. I wouldn't want ANYTHING they build hanging over my house or cars. If your lot is 200'x200' then a 100' tower dead center is A-OK with me. 40'x40' then its 20'.



*could be tower, antenna, flagpole, windmill, what ever.

[WB2WIK]

You beat me to it AC0H.. "if the tower(*) fails it should land totally on your property" is what I consider reasonable. My neighbors are idiots. I wouldn't want ANYTHING they build hanging over my house or cars. If your lot is 200'x200' then a 100' tower dead center is A-OK with me. 40'x40' then its 20'.



*could be tower, antenna, flagpole, windmill, what ever.

Funny. I don't have any CC&Rs or an HOA to deal with, so I had to only deal with municipal ordinance (codes) which actually do allow a tower to be installed without a properly line setback. If my tower fell to the west, it would fall across my next door neighbor's house. However, it's not going to fall.

We do require a permit and inspections, and I had those. The engineer who reviewed them and performed the inspections agreed my house is more likely to fall over than the tower. And if that happened, it would also fall onto my neighbor's property since the house is taller than the setback.:p

Cellular service providers here pay people to install their towers on residential properties if the property is perfectly suited for the coverage they're trying to provide and they can't buy any property nearby because none is available. I know one guy (not a ham, it would be slick if he was) who Verizon pays for a cell tower in his yard. Their agreement is "forever," and they pay his entire monthly mortgage, so he's living there mortgage-free. The tower is 80 feet tall and about 20 feet from his rear property line. It was permitted and approved.

It's a free-standing tower in about 30 cubic yards of concrete. It's not going anywhere.

[NN3W]

The 70' tree is covered by your homeowners insurance from a liability perspective.
Your 70' tower might not be.
Whatever happened to "if the tower fails it should land totally on your property" axiom?
Are people really proposing siting towers right on the property line in sub-divisions?

I've never seen or heard of a policy that couldn't be expanded or had a rider attached to cover a tower - especially one properly installed and erected...

[WB2WIK]

I've never seen or heard of a policy that couldn't be expanded or had a rider attached to cover a tower - especially one properly installed and erected...

Neither have I. Liability insurance is pretty easy. "Full replacement cost" comprehensive insurance would cost more, but probably not needed.

Unless you're in the path of hurricanes.:o

[KE4KY]

Why would you limit a 1/4 acre home to nothing over 20' above the building? I know a lot of 1/4 acre lots around here with 75 or 100 foot tall oaks and poplars.

Exactly...what process does one have to go through to plant a simple tree?

[K1MAL]

We do require a permit and inspections, and I had those. The engineer who reviewed them and performed the inspections agreed my house is more likely to fall over than the tower.

We don't need any of that stuff.




Cellular service providers here pay people to install their towers on residential properties if the property is perfectly suited for the coverage they're trying to provide and they can't buy any property nearby because none is available. I know one guy (not a ham, it would be slick if he was) who Verizon pays for a cell tower in his yard. Their agreement is "forever," and they pay his entire monthly mortgage, so he's living there mortgage-free. The tower is 80 feet tall and about 20 feet from his rear property line. It was permitted and approved.

It's a free-standing tower in about 30 cubic yards of concrete. It's not going anywhere.

I thought this thread was about amateur installed stuff not professional towers and cell cites.. Do you think every tower out there has 30 yards under it? Like I said in my 1st post the guy next door cant even get a 4' fence to stay up. When he put in his patio he ruined his own sprinkler system. If he put up a 60' tower over my garage and cars I might have some issues. :eek:

[NN3W]

Exactly...what process does one have to go through to plant a simple tree?

Oh, in some HOAs, you need approval from the ADB.

[WB2WIK]

Exactly...what process does one have to go through to plant a simple tree?

I've also read some covenants and HOA By-Laws that STRICTLY prohibit planting a new tree that wasn't already there. And I mean "very strictly." You simply cannot do it, in some places, without violating the covenants.

It's the homeowner version of Stepford Wives. Everything must be exactly as originally planned, no deviations from that.

I wouldn't live in such a community if someone paid me a lot of money to do it. Life's short and as far as I know, we only get one shot at it.

[KY5U]

I wouldn't live in such a community if someone paid me a lot of money to do it.
Yes, I hear that from many hams especially when I say I live in a restricted neighborhood. There's something about the ham that compels them to make bold proclamations. It's almost like a Tourettes Syndrome of some sort. I don't mean to pick on you, WIK, as all you did was to reminded me of the affliction.

[W4PG]

"Reasonable accommodation" is what I have up - an 89 foot US Tower with a 2 ele 40 meter beam at 101 feet and a 4 ele SteppIR at 91 feet. Works for me!!

[KJ4VTH]

Our HOA rules say nothing should be visible from the street (that goes for anything, not specifically antennas) and my G5RVjr is low enough to meet the requirement. Portable vertical setup stands out a bit more but I usually take it down the same day and no complaints from the neighbors. I find this reasonable accommodation.

[NI7I]

Do I have this right? You are saying that those of us who wouldnt (dont) live in such a community have Tourettes Syndrome? Thats simply amazing.. I see nothing "bold" about
WIK's statement.. It's merely a statement indicating his choice. I wouldnt and dont live in such restrictive communities.. Naver have and dont see it happening anytime soon.
I guess you have degrees that would qualify you to make such diagnosis..

Lee
NI7I


Yes, I hear that from many hams especially when I say I live in a restricted neighborhood. There's something about the ham that compels them to make bold proclamations. It's almost like a Tourettes Syndrome of some sort. I don't mean to pick on you, WIK, as all you did was to reminded me of the affliction.

[K6OK]

Whatever happened to "if the tower fails it should land totally on your property" axiom?

Hopefully that's an urban myth that will fade away.

Here's a rhetorical question: If the Empire State Building or the Sears Tower fell over, would they land completely within their property lines? Skyscrapers could not exist in any major city if all structures had to have properties big enough to contain them if they fell. Everywhere you look there are telephone poles, billboards, buildings, and cell towers that if they fell over would land on someone else's property. A properly engineered tower should be just as acceptable any other properly engineered structure. For some reason ham towers have been singled out for the "fall zone" criteria while other structures have not. 73 Jim K6OK

[N0AZZ]

A maximum of one HF vertical no more than 60' and 1 tower free standing or guyed 75' total height, 2 roof towers or tripods total of 25' above roof line, 3 Dipoles what ever length you can fit.

Seems very reasonable and a small amount for a well rounded ham to have to cover all the bands well from 23cm to 160m anyway. I would hate to have so few myself but some considerations have to be made for in town use but still have full capability in all emergencies to respond around town or around the world.

[W4PG]

Hopefully that's an urban myth that will fade away.

Here's a rhetorical question: If the Empire State Building or the Sears Tower fell over, would they land completely within their property lines? Skyscrapers could not exist in any major city if all structures had to have properties big enough to contain them if they fell. Everywhere you look there are telephone poles, billboards, buildings, and cell towers that if they fell over would land on someone else's property. A properly engineered tower should be just as acceptable any other properly engineered structure. For some reason ham towers have been singled out for the "fall zone" criteria while other structures have not. 73 Jim K6OK

Agreed.

The idea that a 100-foot tower must be 100 feet from the property lines demonstrates an ignorance of how towers fail (note I did not say FALL!). The tower usually buckles and crashes down on itself rather than falling over in one piece from the base.

[AC0H]

I've never seen or heard of a policy that couldn't be expanded or had a rider attached to cover a tower - especially one properly installed and erected...
From a replacement point of view yes.
From a liability point of view I don't know.
Funny stuff happens in court.

[N2RJ]

REasonable accommodations by HOAs and condo associations - whatever you agreed to in your contract.

What we SHOULD be doing is attacking this at the source - a lot of cities and towns are encouraging new developments to have HOAs so the city/town is not on the hook for things like street cleaning and snow removal. This is just wrong and should stop.

[WB2WIK]

Yes, I hear that from many hams especially when I say I live in a restricted neighborhood. There's something about the ham that compels them to make bold proclamations. It's almost like a Tourettes Syndrome of some sort. I don't mean to pick on you, WIK, as all you did was to reminded me of the affliction.

My objection to covenants and HOA By-Laws placing needless restrictions on property owners really has nothing at all to do with ham radio. It has everything to do with simple freedom. I don't want the same kind of garage door as my neighbor, or the same kind of mailbox, or hedges that are height restricted, or a restriction against building a wall around my back yard, or any number of things that are generally prohibited in such communities. It goes way beyond antennas.

For those that like all the conformity, that's great. I don't think I'll ever be one of them.:o

[WB2WIK]

From a replacement point of view yes.
From a liability point of view I don't know.
Funny stuff happens in court.

Actually, liability insurance is generally cheaper and easier to secure than replacement value comprehensive.

If you already have homeowner's insurance, as is required for ownership almost everywhere -- at least if you ever had a mortgage -- it's not difficult to add a liability "umbrella" with a very high value, pretty cheaply. I do that every time I have any contractors working on the property: I take a $1 Million liability umbrella to protect myself in the event someone gets injured. When the work is completed, I cancel it. Sometimes it's only in effect for two days. Not expensive, and done with a phone call followed by an e-mail confirmation.

A permanent liability umbrella for $100K or $200K to cover a neighbor's property damage shouldn't be expensive.

Since I'm as certain my tower won't fall as I am the sun will rise tomorrow, I don't even bother.:o But some might want to.

[KB2FCV]

I definitely fall in the crowd of "I would never buy in a HOA neighborhood", but I'll comment here.

I definitely think wire antennas are reasonable accomodations. If you have 70 or 100' trees, you should be able to put them up there. They are pretty hard to see when up and they work pretty good. I think verticals are pretty reasonable as well. I think towers and beams are pushing it, however.

[KY5U]

Do I have this right? You are saying that those of us who wouldnt (dont) live in such a community have Tourettes Syndrome? Thats simply amazing..
What you're doing is called obfuscation. Please reread my comment. Thanks!

[K0RGR]

Whatever happened to "if the tower fails it should land totally on your property" axiom?
Are people really proposing siting towers right on the property line in sub-divisions?

I can't remember his call, but there was a guy in the City of Des Moines years ago who was a rabid moonbouncer. He had what I think was a 100 foot tower in his postage-stamp sized back yard, with a very impressive 2 meter moonbounce arrray on it. He had put up 4 regular sized streetlight poles, filled with concrete, one at each corner of his lot, so he would have places to anchor the guys for the larger tower. Our babysitter lived across the street from it, so I got to see it quite often. Perhaps you saw his installation, and it inspired your very valid concern?

[K1VSK]

This thread is not for those of you who think hams should avoid HOA's at all costs and deserve to suffer accordingly What do you realistically think are "reasonable accomodations." Let's try to be "reasonable" by keeping rants to a minimum.

Unfortunately, you can't even make "reasonable"requests here evidenced by some of the comments, most of which are from people who simply don't like deed restrictions.

Ignoring those, the question of what I "realistically think is reasonable" is pretty simple. Having worked all current entities and another 25 or so deleted ones almost exclusively from a HOA community which is as strict as it gets says to me the HOA issue is an excuse rather than a limitation.

Sure, it's easier when one doesn't have to contend with antenna restrictions but if its easy, there is no challenge and with no challenge, it's a pitiful goal. It shouldn't be easy and for all the folks who require 100 ft towers and 1500W, the accomplishment is that much more diminished to the point any idiot can work them all given enough time.

So my answer is that HOAs serve a purpose if only to provide an excuse to those who can't do it the hard way.

[KJ4VTH]

Wow! You said it a bit more forcefully than I might have but it sure seems that way with some folks!

[N4UM]

K1VSK - "So my answer is that HOAs serve a purpose if only to provide an excuse to those who can't do it the hard way."

So what you're you're really saying is that if you can do it, any idiot can do it - right? Maybe we're not all blessed with your superb operating skills and fanatical devotion to putting notches on your little gun.

Your lack of modesty is exceeded only by your failure to respond to the substance of the question posed by this thread. Thanks for sharing.

[N4UM]

K1VSK - BTW, as I read your QRZ.com page I see that you claim to have an 80 foot tower and monobanders for use at home when not sailing on your yacht. Does that mean that you think 80 foot towers with monobanders are "reasonable" in HOAs? Get a clue!

[K1VSK]

K1VSK - BTW, as I read your QRZ.com page I see that you claim to have an 80 foot tower and monobanders for use at home when not sailing on your yacht. Does that mean that you think 80 foot towers with monobanders are "reasonable" in HOAs? Get a clue!

Assuming you'd prefer to have a valid exchange of views rather than resort to insults, I'd be happy to...

It should be obvious I was referring to my present qth where HOA restrictions exist, not my previous one from which it was like shooting fish in a barrel with those antennas. Can you not see the challenge and sense of accomplishment from this qth is jaw-dropping compared with the former one where any idiot, including myself, could work anything and everything?

That is the point and my comment on the limitations of antenna restrictions. That you don't like the message shouldn't be a reason to dismiss it.

[W6OGC]

Life's short and as far as I know, we only get one shot at it.

I agree with you, Steve. My wife believes in reincarnation, but I don't, and I didn't last time either.

I don't think "reasonable accommodation" can be measured in feet and inches of height or set back, etc. What is reasonable depends on the circumstances.

We put in an offer to buy a fairly large lot in rural hill country, intending to build a fairly large Zero Energy home there. I negotiated with the head of the Architectural Control Committee at length, while he promised to keep an open mind, but in the end, he felt compelled to enforce his reading of the CC&R's strictly which to him meant "concealed from public view" meant nobody could see it, even though the public will never see anything as it is in a gated community with no public streets. At least I got that figured out before I parted with any money.
There is no reason I can understand why a modest tower and yagi/quad, or perhaps a couple of antennas, couldn't be allowed on that property. There are a good many trees, some quite high, and it is not as though the tower would be blocking anyone's view of the ocean, or magnificent sunsets etc. Physically it would be very doable, and aesthetically would not diminish in any discernible way one's enjoyment. In that situation, I can only conclude that it is personality defects at work.

[N4UM]

K1VSK - "It should be obvious I was referring to my present qth where HOA restrictions exist, not my previous one from which it was like shooting fish in a barrel with those antennas."

It sure wasn't obvious to me when I looked at your page on QRZ.com. I have no idea what your present housing situation is. How could I? Perhaps you should consider updating your page for those of us who are not mindreaders. If you no longer have a station where any idiot could shoot fish in a barrel how are we to know? You still never anwered the question as to what you thought might be "reasonable accomodations." Wanta try again?

[K1VSK]

K1VSK - "It should be obvious I was referring to my present qth where HOA restrictions exist, not my previous one from which it was like shooting fish in a barrel with those antennas."

It sure wasn't obvious to me when I looked at your page on QRZ.com. I have no idea what your present housing situation is. How could I?

I know you have no idea. That is obvious. Apparently, that didn't prevent you from assuming something not true.

Now that we have set your perceptions, it may be useful to you to re-read what I wrote, this time with an open mind.

If not, I have better things to do.

[WB2WIK]

Ham radio is a great hobby.

You can do almost anything with it. I know guys in very restricted housing situations who simply do all their operating mobile, and have 5BDXCC, 5BWAZ, 5BWAS, etc. Interested in VHF-UHF? "Roving" provides amazing possibilities to do all sorts of stuff, win contests, break records. It's all effort, skill and timing.

I lived in a rented condo back in '88-89 and used attic dipoles (with a kilowatt! -- nobody knew) to keep quite active on HF. I wasn't going to win any contests from there, but with timing, skill and perserverance I made my way through many of the DXpedition pileups and worked 'em. 3Y5X was on while I was there, and I worked them on several bands, including "first call" on 30m (caught them real early -- luck). What made it a tad easier back then is almost nobody was on the internet, so DX spotting was only via local VHF packet clusters and thousands of great DXers weren't part of that...so if you happened to stumble across a new DX signal and got to them first, they were pretty easy to work.

Then, some of us are really busy as I am right now and don't have so much time to devote to tuning around. If you want to work DXCC in a day during a contest, that can be done, but not with QRP and a wire in the living room. It takes some time. But it can be done. Yet since I have limited operating time, I try to make the most of the little time I have and big antennas help a lot in that regard...I can work stuff in an hour that might otherwise take a week. But if I had the week to devote to it, I'd probably work all the same stuff with a loop in the attic or a whip on the car. It's all "how much time do you have?"

[N4UM]

K1VSK - I honestly can't figure out what you're trying to say. Why don't you spell it out for me - real slowly.

[N4UM]

K1VSK - I did re-read your comments with an open mind. I honestly can't understand what you're trying to say. I don't know if it's because you can't write or because I can't read. In either case, please try to reformulate your remarks. Perhaps a third party who is wasting their time reading this exhange can chime in with some helpful comments.

[W4PG]

So my answer is that HOAs serve a purpose if only to provide an excuse to those who can't do it the hard way.

I have to say I'm confused by this remark, among others, as well. You seem to suggest that HOAs serve the purpose of making hams work hard for DX, as if HOAs were somehow sanctioned by the FCC to do that. Yet, in your QRZ bio, you say:


The IC735 with auto-tuner attached to an end-fed backstay antenna on salt water is about equivalent to the 80 ft tower with monobanders and full power amp at the home qth.

So I assume you have an 80 ft tower with monobanders at home - running a full power amp.

So much for HOA restrictions. You say that in the boat, your "end-fed backstay antenna on salt water is about equivalent" to your home monobanders. Cool!!

I'm not really getting where HOA restrictions are stopping you from using your monobanders on an 80 foot tower, or how HOA restrictions in an area where you can use monobanders on an 80 foot tower are any restriction at all. Seems to me, that's exactly the "no challenge" you're talking about, which myself and others simply don't understand.

Me? I've been a ham for 42 years and it wasn't till about year 38 that I finally was able to put up my 89 foot tower with 2 ele 40 meter beam at 101 ft and 4 ele SteppIR at 91 feet. I usually get the DX on the first or second call. And I make no apologies for that. I did it the HARD way for many years!! Nothing wrong with having the means to do it with big antennas and big amps, if you get the chance.

..............Bob

[KA3JLW]

I don't think "reasonable accommodation" can be measured in feet and inches of height or set back, etc. What is reasonable depends on the circumstances.

You guys started up again and didn't notify me? :)

So I agree that "reasonable accommodation" is best left to circumstance, but I wonder if that's feasible these days:
1. Assuming the next step from the FCC RFI is to possibly introduce legislation (or have DHS suggest legislation for introduction) - does such a broad allowance have much of a chance of passing? The trend seems to be to write the rules very exact and leave nothing to the courts, but also little room for imagination or 'circumstance' that might logically fit. Thus the phonebooks of regulations. Wouldn't you expect a more precise defintion just as part of the process?

2. Would we want to risk the courts caving to challenges and rendering such a position so weak as to be useless? e.g., a ham fights with the HOA and they pose all the reasons the antenna is outside of reason...and the judge buys it. Now there's case law that's really unsustainable. Would we want a more precise definition even if only to ensure we don't end up back at square one?

If forced to define reasonable, I'd lean maybe toward a percentage angle, which is to say that an antenna can't be more than (I dunno) 30% higher than the house height at it's highest, or of the inside unit height if the unit is a condo/shared space.....but boy, I can think of lots of details that creep in - setbacks, visual impact even if below the height limit, safety concerns, etc.

OTOH, I fear that if we don't propose something, it'll be proposed for us.

[2E0OZI]

As a former town palnning officer I DO have some views on what is a reasonable accomodation.......but lunch is now over so its back to work! :cool:

[K1VSK]

You seem to suggest that HOAs serve the purpose of making hams work hard for DX, as if HOAs were somehow sanctioned by the FCC to do that.
To state is differently, the term "reasonable restrictions" is a non-sequitur. To again state the obvious, HOAs exist to preserve the aesthetics of a community. Some may disagree but that is irrelevant. Limiting the size of the monstrosity used for antenna(s) by a small segment of the ham population (and an even smaller segment of the community as a whole) is inherently reasonable to the majority of people therein. To expect the vast majority of the community to even consider the opinion of a few scattered hams is an unreasonable expectation.

As to the practical implication of restricting antenna placement, size, location, etc..., my point, if it wasn't already abundantly clear, is that such restrictions are not a limitation evidenced by one fool's accomplishment (i.e., mine).

That some view HOA restrictions as some sort of limitation of personal freedom or that such restrictions precludes enjoyment of this hobby is silly on it's face unless they have somehow been forced to reside where they do.

This isn't that confusing...

[KA3JLW]

To state is differently, the term "reasonable restrictions" is a non-sequitur. To again state the obvious, HOAs exist to preserve the aesthetics of a community. Some may disagree but that is irrelevant. Limiting the size of the monstrosity used for antenna(s) by a small segment of the ham population (and an even smaller segment of the community as a whole) is inherently reasonable to the majority of people therein. To expect the vast majority of the community to even consider the opinion of a few scattered hams is an unreasonable expectation.

As to the practical implication of restricting antenna placement, size, location, etc..., my point, if it wasn't already abundantly clear, is that such restrictions are not a limitation evidenced by one fool's accomplishment (i.e., mine).

That some view HOA restrictions as some sort of limitation of personal freedom or that such restrictions precludes enjoyment of this hobby is silly on it's face unless they have somehow been forced to reside where they do.

This isn't that confusing...

I agree somewhat but not completely.

I agree that an HOA restriction isn't the same as saying a person can't be a ham. I agree that people choose HOAs, though it is getting hard not to in many areas, especially job-rich areas. I also agree that an HOA's concern is aesthetics, which is believed to impact their home values.

I disagree that it is as simple as "To expect the vast majority of the community to even consider the opinion of a few scattered hams is an unreasonable expectation."

I also disagree that HOA restrictions don't offer a limitation - they do. They don't offer a 100% "You can't be a ham" but they do limit us. So do many other things - money, gravity, FCC regs, etc. In my case, as I've said elsewhere, it is the one factor that keeps me off the air today. The hurdle isn't impossibly high, but it is higher than I currently care to jump.

Hams offer a valuable resource. We can debate what the resource is, or how valuable it is. But the consensus is generally that we offer a direct valuable resource, vs. say someone who just wants to put up a big pole in their yard because they collect poles.

We have two things - a fairly widespread limitation on ham radio and that ham radio is a valued resource.

So the root question - are the HOA's restrictions, in general, in balance with the value of that resource?

Congress is exploring this now.

I'd say that there's room for compromise there, something that allows outdoor antennas while NOT allowing blatent blights. Some HOA's may not even be impacted if their regs aren't that strong or specific. Many will, but a well-written reg will provide them protection too - a protection that is in balance with the overall value hams bring to a community.

[K9STH]

There have been a number of CC&Rs that prohibit radio transmitters! However, when one "points out" that things like baby monitors, garage door openers, etc., let alone cellular telephones, all involve radio transmitters, the proponents suddenly lose interest in enforcing those particular rules.

Glen, K9STH

[KA3JLW]

There have been a number of CC&Rs that prohibit radio transmitters! However, when one "points out" that things like baby monitors, garage door openers, etc., let alone cellular telephones, all involve radio transmitters, the proponents suddenly lose interest in enforcing those particular rules.

Glen, K9STH

Hi Glen... and that is very much at the heart of this - that while CCR's have the right to put many of these rules in place, they have also stretched the boundaries of "why" a law or regulation should exist. To enact a law to merely enforce a preference is very much against the whole purpose of our particular form of Government.

This isn't a 'clean' issue, there are laws and regs at all levels that garner debate and our courts help decide such issues all the time. Glen, your example shows how some regulations are put in place as a target against undesired things (that otherwise don't infringe on others) vs. as a means to provide protection or ensure rights. When the drafters figure out that they fall in the target zone of their limiting regulation, suddenly they're against the reg and strike it. Simple proof that they are concerned about their liberties but not of everyone's liberties.

Are blanket antenna bans really protecting those that live in the neighborhood, or merely a reflection of the fact that they just don't like it? And if they have the right to "not like it" - what about people of different skin color?

Regulations that merely cut people out, especially small groups of them, without evidence of a real need to do so or evidence of how the rest are negatively impacted....that's always a slippery slope and (I'd argue) the exact thing many of our ancestors fled when coming to America. God forbid you had the wrong skin color, practiced the wrong faith or (in today's example) you wished to hang a dipole from the house to the shed. Despite proving that you don't harm others, you're simply not allowed - and that's distinctly unamerican and against much of what the rest of the world is doing these days.

[WA9SVD]

K1VSK - "So my answer is that HOAs serve a purpose if only to provide an excuse to those who can't do it the hard way."

So what you're you're really saying is that if you can do it, any idiot can do it - right? Maybe we're not all blessed with your superb operating skills and fanatical devotion to putting notches on your little gun.

Your lack of modesty is exceeded only by your failure to respond to the substance of the question posed by this thread. Thanks for sharing.

I'm still a bit perplexed by this thread. I guess all of us "idiots" should just turn in our licenses and take up basket weaving, since we don't have the ability to operate from a sailboat, or have an 80' tower at home. I don't have an 80' tower out at sea, nor do I have a saliboat at home.
I guess I'm not acceptable as an Amateur Radio operator.

Unfortunately, I don't have the option of operating from a sailboat, nor do I have the option of a tower at one of my "alternate" residences or humble places of abode. So I don't have the bragging rights about numerous world-wide DX contacts; I have to make them all from ONE location.

[N4UM]

Jeez...It's like trying to herd cats! 59 responses to this thread so far and I count less than 10 that seem to at least take a stab at what they might regard as defining "reasonable accomodations" or at least outlining the circumstances that should come into play when trying to do so.

[AD5ZC]

Jeez...It's like trying to herd cats! 59 responses to this thread so far and I count less than 10 that seem to at least take a stab at what they might regard as defining "reasonable accomodations" or at least outlining the circumstances that should come into play when trying to do so.

^
Make it 60.

ooops...
61
:)

[WB2WIK]

Jeez...It's like trying to herd cats!

If you need a catherd, I'm your man.

Great job.:o

[W6OGC]

Maybe the approach is for one of you RF geniuses to design a really efficient antenna that resembles a tennis court, or maybe a swimming pool. Those are popular, customary and nobody in elected office would dream of trying to ban those, or support any proposal to do so.

If it is generally popular in the sense that many like to have them, a way will be found to accommodate them. If it is something that is relatively unpopular, in the sense that few want to have them, there is no way. The same thing goes for bank robbery, polygamy and gambling, among other activities.

[N4UP]

Early on in the thread someone suggested that what is "reasonable" might vary a lot from one community HOA to another, and I agree.

In my community all non-mobile antennas are prohibited except for satellite dishes, and they must not be visible from the street. I served for two years on the HOA board so I learned a lot about what people "here" care about. There are over 100 homes and none are alike, and most properties are around 1 acre in size ( some larger, none smaller ). All properties must meet the "architectural guidelines" which are strictly enforced by the Architectural Review Committee ( ARC ) ( anyone who bypasses the process gets served with a stop-work order or restraining order from a local magistrate and then a lien is placed on the property ). So for now I am exploring various "attic" antennas and considering a flagpole ( actual flagpoles are not prohibited ).

But to address the question --- What I think would be reasonable in my community would be to allow up to three commercially-made and commercially-installed antennas, with no towers or supports located in the front yard of any property and no tower taller than 60 feet. That might accommodate most hams' needs and satisfy most neighbors' concerns with regard to aesthetics and property values. The reason I suggest "commercially-made" and "commercially-installed" is to avoid neighbors' challenges and what many of us would consider home-brew eyesores ( it's easier to defend something that is commercially-made and commercially-installed ). Let's face it, most hams might think an antenna farm is attractive, while most of my neighbors might think it is ugly. Moreover, the ARC "guidelines" require considerable engineering details including samples of materials to be used.

I should also suggest, based on discussions with various HOA management companies and their lawyers, that HOA covenants, deed restrictions, etc., vary a lot from one community to another and that enforcement also varies a lot from one to another. Mine enforces some covenants strictly and ignores other covenants. Here it all depends on who is President of the board and who is Chairperson of the ARC.

[K6ABZ]

UP, I think I like your definition.

For me, I'm a little simpler and straightforward:
I think it's fair to be able to mount 3 verticals: one UHF, one VHF (or two multi-band) and one HF vertical. The lowest point of any radiator or radial should be no higher than 6" above the peak of the roof.

Push up or tilt-up towers with additional antennas should be allowed, provided they're hidden from the street when not in use.

Apartment or condo dwellers should be allowed to put temporary installations on their decks or patios, as long as they stay within their own exclusive-use space.

Except for some bad RF environments (buried between hills, for example), nobody needs multiple beams and towers for emergency communications... and if they do, they should have the right to install push up or tilt-up towers with whatever is needed for reliable, EMCOMM work. This doesn't mean putting in a 7-element beam to DX Asia. It means being able to reach the next link in the EMCOMM net.

[WB2WIK]

Maybe the approach is for one of you RF geniuses to design a really efficient antenna that resembles a tennis court, or maybe a swimming pool. Those are popular, customary and nobody in elected office would dream of trying to ban those, or support any proposal to do so.

If it is generally popular in the sense that many like to have them, a way will be found to accommodate them. If it is something that is relatively unpopular, in the sense that few want to have them, there is no way. The same thing goes for bank robbery, polygamy and gambling, among other activities.

I have copies of dozens of CC&Rs that specifically prohibit private swimming pools and tennis courts. Such prohibition is very popular.

They also prohibit border fences and walls, or if those are allowed, they restrict their height. I have copies of CC&Rs specifically prohibiting basketball hoops installed anywhere on the property.

I have copies of CC&Rs prohibiting "plantings" (trees, bushes) taller than 60" with no exceptions allowed.

I'd rather move to another country than abide by any of that.:p

[KS4VT]

Below is what I sent to mine years ago. The association's CCR is currently in violation of the FCC OTARD rules but they are not enforcing them, at least to my knowledge. As with most communities they need something like 75% of the owners to vote to approve, which is always an issue with updating CCR's and I believe why it hasn't been updated as of yet. I work very closely with my association and IMO have the best local in-house Part 90 communications systems for our in-house employees (maintenance, security, disaster recovery) because I designed and installed it. ;) OK I'm just a little biased. LOL

This is my proposed language....oh and a majority of the homes are 2 story, so the allowed height using my language could be well over 20' AGL.

Section 3.04(c) Antennae. Aerials and Satellite Dishes:

“The Federal Communications Commission in 1996 published the “Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule (OTARD)” which governs the right of homeowners to receive programming from direct broadcast services (DBS), multi-channel, multi-point distribution (wireless cable) service (MMDS) and television broadcast stations (TVBS) on property that they own or rent “COMMITTED PROPERTY” and that is within their exclusive use or control. The Association is currently prohibited from the following:

(1) Restrictions that impair the installation, maintenance or use of antennae to receive video programming as well as satellite dishes which are less than thirty-nine (39) inches in diameter.

(2) Restrictions that unreasonably delay or prevent, or unreasonably increase the cost of, the installation, maintenance or use of such antennae, or which preclude the receiving or transmitting of an acceptable signal.

"The Association does not have the right to regulate the above-described telecommunications equipment on COMMITTED PROPERTY with respect to landscaping or installed heights lower than 12 feet above the roofline.” When possible, all exterior antennae or satellite dishes should be placed in the rear or the “non-zero lot line” side yard of COMMITTED PROPERTY in such a manner as to be as unobtrusive as possible yet does not preclude the reception of an acceptable quality signal. Any matter of safety will be handled on a case by case basis by the Association.

"Any homeowner who wishes to install an antennae more than 12 feet above the roofline, a satellite dish larger than 39” in diameter, or in areas other than the rear or “non-zero lot line” side of the COMMITTED PROPERTY should submit a Architectural Request for Modification form and a sketch showing its location relative to the home to the Design Review Committee for review."

"All other antennas or aerials (i.e. amateur radio) other than those described above shall be placed either in the attic, in the rear yard no closer than 10' from the rear corner of the dwelling, or in such a manner so as to be as unobtrusive as possible. In no event shall these antennas or aerials exceed a height greater than the highest point of the roof without Design Review Committee approval."

“Any homeowner who wishes to install exterior antennas or aerials on COMMITTED PROPERTY that is not covered by the FCC OTARD Rules noted above must submit an Architectural Request for Modification form and a sketch showing its location relative to the home to the Design Review Committee prior to installation."

“All antennas and dishes should be temporarily removed from the COMMITTED PROPERTY and stored inside when the County is under a Hurricane Warning”

Section 3.04(f) Radio Equipment:

“Radio Transmission equipment (i.e. garage door openers, cordless phones, cellular/PCS phones, amateur radio, FRS radios, wireless routers, etc.) may be operated in the COMMITTED PROPERTY as long as they are operated within the Rules and Regulations of the Federal Communications Commission. Radio Transmission Equipment that is not FCC type accepted or modified to operate outside of the FCC Rules and Regulations (i.e. Citizen Band Linear Amplifiers) is prohibited.”

[K7NNG]

I don't think HOA and developers should have any say at all......CC&Rs are a joke today......
They take freedoms away from us on a daily basis.......ughhhhhhh

[K9STH]

Many years ago, there was a subdivision in this area that had all sorts of CC&Rs proposed by the developer. Things like the mailboxes had to be of an "approved" design, no vehicles with any kind of advertising (i.e. company name) were not allowed after dark, fences had to be of only one type, etc. However, there was no mention of antennas. My wife and I put up earnest money on a new house (before getting a copy of the CC&Rs) with a certain restriction in the contract which basically said if the restrictions were such that we didn't approve, then the earnest money was to be returned in full. The realtor finally got us a copy of the CC&Rs.

I telephoned the developer to inquire as to just what composed the "committee" that made the approvals and also asked about amateur radio antennas. He replied that HE was the committee and that he discouraged any amateur radio operator from purchasing one of his homes! So, I withdrew my offer. The realtor was extremely unhappy, it turned out that the developer was offering twice the normal commission because the local economy was taking a dip (both Collins Radio and Texas Instruments were laying off people) and house sales were very slow. As a result, the realtor with whom we had been working refused to show us any other houses. So, we changed realtors.

The "new" realtor showed us 4-houses and my wife and I decided on the one in which we are now living. I put the same clause about antennas, etc., in the offer that we made on the house. This realtor found that there were no CC&rs in the neighborhood and also found the city zoning regulations concerning antennas (you can't go over 100 feet above ground in a residential area without a variance). The 100 foot restriction was definitely acceptable so we bought the house.

Fast forward a couple of years: The developer of the subdivision with all of the CC&Rs didn't get around to filing the CC&Rs with Collin County! At least in Texas, CC&Rs have to be filed before a contract is signed on the property for them to apply to that individual property. In the case of this subdivision no CC&Rs were actually in place. A number of amateur radio operators found out that there were no legal CC&Rs and bought houses in the subdivision. Within a short period of time there were several towers. Of course, some neighbors tried to have the towers removed saying that there were CC&Rs in force. Unfortunately for them, there were no CC&Rs and other things, like mailboxes not approved by the "committee" were soon seen in the subdivision.

One has to investigate to see if any CC&Rs actually apply to an individual piece of property. If the original owner signed a contract to purchase the property before the CC&Rs were legally recorded, in most states the CC&Rs do not apply to that particular property. The date of the recording of the CC&Rs can play a substantial role in what a homeowner can, and cannot, do with that property.

Glen, K9STH

[N4UP]

Interesting insights, Glen. Now I am not defending HOAs or recorded covenants/deed restrictions, but it is my sense that they do not generally "take away" our rights, because we who buy property subject to recorded covenants/deed restrictions are choosing to be subject to them ( we may not like it, but it is still our choice to buy or not to buy ). But there are some circumstances where they do "take away" our rights, and that is where covenants/deed restrictions are already in place when we buy, and are legally changed after we buy property, e.g., in my community, through a 2/3 majority vote of the homeowners and where the revised covenants/deed restrictions then apply to everyone who owns property here ( because the original covenants were legally placed on the entire development before anyone bought property ).

For example, in 2004, I bought property in a new subdivision with recorded covenants that did not prohibit amateur radio antennas ( but prohibited horses ). But the developer still owned most of the lots, and he legally had 7 votes per building lot compared to 1 vote per building lot for any of the buyers ( the 7:1 is a common practice in North Carolina and "protects" the developer's interests until almost all of the lots are sold ). In other words, the developer had the 2/3 majority votes required and could change the covenants any time he wished, and simply record them. Indeed he did so. He decided that he could sell more lots if horses were allowed, so all of a sudden we were an equestrian community. Now I don't have anything against horses, but I did not want to live in such a place, so I sold at a loss and moved on. It would have been worse if I had raised an antenna farm and then the developer decided to prohibit antennas. But I wasn't going to take any chances.

My point is that whenever any of us buy into a development that already has an HOA and has covenants or deed restrictions, those covenants/deed restrictions can be changed ( for good or ill ). In my current community it is almost impossible to change the covenants because of the 2/3 rule. So then it becomes a matter of whether or not the HOA actually enforces the covenants and rules that they have. Indeed, the HOA board ( at least in North Carolina ) can establish "rules" that are enforceable, as long as they do not conflict with the recorded covenants or with North Carolina statutes. So you take your chances.

Of course I would prefer to live without antenna restrictions but still have some "protection" of my property value.

[K9STH]

UP:

Even if the restrictions are changed, anything that was done by a homeowner that conformed to the original restrictions before the restrictions are changed are "grandfathered". That is, they can remain. If the property is sold, then things might get "sticky". Depending on the original agreement one signed, anything that has been "grandfathered" may, or may not, be allowed to remain. That is when the lawyers get involved!

Glen, K9STH

[N4UP]

UP:

Even if the restrictions are changed, anything that was done by a homeowner that conformed to the original restrictions before the restrictions are changed are "grandfathered". That is, they can remain. If the property is sold, then things might get "sticky". Depending on the original agreement one signed, anything that has been "grandfathered" may, or may not, be allowed to remain. That is when the lawyers get involved!

Glen, K9STH

Glen, I don't doubt what you say is true in some jurisdictions, maybe even in most places, but our HOA attorney insists that any changes legally made ( i.e., through due process, in compliance with our articles, bylaws, and North Carolina statutes, by 2/3 majority vote of the homeowners, and properly recorded ) do apply to everyone in the development. The "reason" they say it would apply to everyone here is that by virtue of buying property here, everyone has therefore already agreed to be subjected to the HOA articles, bylaws, and covenants, and associated "process" ... meaning 2/3 majority rule.

Of course one can always challenge any such change by bringing a lawsuit, but that can be quite expensive, and likely to fail ( according to our property management company president and his HOA-specialist attorney, both of whom were involved in developing the North Carolina statutes that apply to HOAs ). I personally think that grandfathering is fair to the minority, but apparently that doesn't apply here. If a 2/3 majority want us to have green mailboxes that are shaped like kangaroos, then we will all have green mailboxes shaped like kangaroos.

What I care about is a adding a covenant that is ( reasonably ) permissive of antenna structures rather than entirely prohibitive. But since I am apparently the only licensed ham in a community of over 100 properties it seems quite unlikely I could obtain 2/3 majority support. More likely it would require an FCC ruling or changes to the North Carolina statutes. However, when the state legislature passed the NC Planned Community Act, they made it so that only some provisions applied to "older" communities like mine, while all provisions apply to newer communities; so even if they changed the "law" it might not apply to my community. It might, but it might not. Life is too complicated, so for now I will stick with my multi-band rotatable dipole in the attic.

[WB2WIK]

CC&Rs are something the American people let happen, slowly over several decades...I blame everybody including myself and past generations.:p

But whoever thinks that all new housing must have such covenants is incorrect. I checked here over the past several weeks and there are brand new houses being built right now that don't have any, nor are they part of any HOA. They're just not "tract" homes, they're built one by one. Slightly more expensive than in a tract, but frankly, not by much. It's still a matter of "cost per square foot" and if the going rate is $250 per square foot as it is in this area, that's pretty much what things cost. If it's all marble and gilded, maybe more; if it's all ramshackle and horrendous, maybe less. But the market determines what stuff's worth.

[W3RXO]

I should have read further, before responding.

[W3RXO]

I think reasonable accommodation would be:

-Antennas restricted in height to 20' above the tallest approved structure on the lot
-Three such installations maximum per lot
-Installations subject to safety inspection by a registered/licensed professional engineer
-Installations subject to grounding requirements per NFPA/NEC
-Homeowner accepts liability for any damage to other owner's properties or any common properties in the event of system failure; homeowner responsible for insurance coverage on installed systems to verify probable compliance with the liability

These seem fairly reasonable to me and would allow a ham to actually work several bands with unobtrusive antenna systems, while protecting neighbors' rights.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Very good description of what I believe would be a reasonable accomodation
I should have read further, before responding, with the previous post. Steve said it perfectly.