Alan Beagley wrote:

This just means that CC&R's are not being enforced strictly, so any
towers you erected, even if you got an official permit for, would be
violating them. You'd likely never win against the association if they
took you to court, because generally the fact that others are
violating them freely does not give you permission to do the same.
It's too risky.

The township has no rules at all for a tower under 70 feet used by a
federally licensed amateur radio operator. They don't even require a
building permit to make sure that it's safe.

If there ever was a Homeowners' Association, it has been defunct for years.

Then you don't have to comply with the CC&R's at all, because there is
no one to enforce them. Make sure it is 100% defunct, though.

And I read of a case where a judge ruled that non-enforcement of the
rules did in fact make the rules of no effect. The HA (or the neighbors)
objected when somebody put up a basketball hoop. When evidence was
presented that there were already 28 basketball hoops in the
subdivision, the judge said that they couldn't suddenly start enforcing
the rules now when they hadn't in the past. (This was not in the same
subdivision, of course.)

Right, but this is the case of a discriminate enforcement of one rule
(iow, the fact that this particular rule was broken would not give you
permission to violate other rules). Unfortunately (or maybe not) for
your case, there are no 28 amateur radio towers in that subdivision.
That's where it gets tricky in the case of a lawsuit with only one other
tower used as a precedent.

But, again, if the HOA is definitely dead, CC&R's are a worthless
document. You may be lucky.


73 ... WA7AA


--

Anti-spam measu look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly

On 09/21/03 01:52 am Zoran Brlecic put fingers to keyboard and launched
the following message into cyberspace:

If there ever was a Homeowners' Association, it has been defunct for
years.

Then you don't have to comply with the CC&R's at all, because there is
no one to enforce them. Make sure it is 100% defunct, though.

That would be nice if it were true, but I think that any other
homeowner(s) in the subdivision could file suit if they had deep enough
pockets.

-=-
Alan AB2OS

Alan Beagley wrote:
On 09/21/03 01:52 am Zoran Brlecic put fingers to keyboard and launched
the following message into cyberspace:

If there ever was a Homeowners' Association, it has been defunct for
years.


Then you don't have to comply with the CC&R's at all, because there is
no one to enforce them. Make sure it is 100% defunct, though.


That would be nice if it were true, but I think that any other
homeowner(s) in the subdivision could file suit if they had deep enough
pockets.

I admit this is best left to lawyers, but generally CC&R's are passed on
from the developer only to the HOA, not to the individual owners. Once
the HOA dissolves, CC&R's are not binding and individuals have no legal
ground to pursue the matters based on them.

Good luck,

WA7AA


--

Anti-spam measu look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly

Still waiting for the lawyer, but I just thought of something else:
Since it seems so many people (hams and others) don't find out about the
CC&Rs until it is too late (i.e., they were never disclosed, even at
closing), I wonder how many of the other property owners in this
subdivision even know about them.

-=-
Alan


On 09/21/03 09:43 am Alan Beagley put fingers to keyboard and launched
the following message into cyberspace:

That would be nice if it were true, but I think that any other
homeowner(s) in the subdivision could file suit if they had deep enough
pockets.

There never was a HOA in this subdivision (30 years old), and the
Covenant Restrictions give any or all of the lot owners the right to sue.

-=-
Alan


On 09/21/03 04:55 pm Zoran Brlecic put fingers to keyboard and launched
the following message into cyberspace:

.. . . I think that any other
homeowner(s) in the subdivision could file suit if they had deep
enough pockets.

I admit this is best left to lawyers, but generally CC&R's are passed on
from the developer only to the HOA, not to the individual owners. Once
the HOA dissolves, CC&R's are not binding and individuals have no legal
ground to pursue the matters based on them.

On 22 Sep 2003 18:58:59 GMT, "Dick Carroll;"
wrote:
I admit this is best left to lawyers, but generally CC&R's are passed
on from the developer only to the HOA, not to the individual owners.
Once the HOA dissolves, CC&R's are not binding and individuals have no
legal ground to pursue the matters based on them.


Seems that isn't a certainty. I've heard of long-defunct HOA's being
resurrected and resuming their "patrol". Then you *might* be able to
prevail on other grounds but that wouldn't keep you out of court with
all the legal expense involved.

Employing a legalism to an advantage may lay in claiming a "silent
easement." This is where you can seize property through "improvements
made" that go uncontested by others. But again, find a real estate
lawyer who may just mutter incomprehensibly at this plot.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Just to add another twist to this, the former Marine in Florida who was
flying the U.S. flag, against the HOA rules (on a flagpole). He won the
initial battle, but now the HOA has prevailed, on court costs, and his home
is being siezed and auctioned to reimburse the HOA.

Hannity & Combs website has info on this.

"Alan Beagley" wrote in message
...
I am still waiting for the lawyer to review the CC&Rs for the property
we are hoping to buy, but in the meantime . . .

Does anybody have any knowledge or experience whether a tower is a
"structure," as the term is used in CC&Rs? -- e.g., "No structure may
be erected on any of the lots except for a single-family dwelling . . .
[then come the size limitations}. No more than one outbuilding may be
erected on any lot . . . [then come the size limitations}."

The context suggests that "structure" means "building," but if it
includes towers, then would it not also include the set-in-concrete
basketball hoops that abound in the subdivision? Not to mention the
amateur radio tower that is already there on another lot -- but I want
to make sure that the owner isn't simply "getting away with it" because
he has nice neighbors, whereas we might turn out to have not-so-nice ones.

Alan AB2OS

But, as I understand it, that subdivision had rules/covenants explicitly
restricting flagpoles to ones mounted on the front of the house and
banning freestanding ones.

-=-
Alan AB2OS


On 09/22/03 09:01 pm Dave Mohr put fingers to keyboard and launched the
following message into cyberspace:

Just to add another twist to this, the former Marine in Florida who was
flying the U.S. flag, against the HOA rules (on a flagpole). He won the
initial battle, but now the HOA has prevailed, on court costs, and his home
is being siezed and auctioned to reimburse the HOA.

Talked to the lawyer (an ARRL Volunteer Counsel) today. He said nobody
had ever asked the question before, but, without doing $1000 worth of
research (which still would provide no definitive answer), he was of
the opinion that in this context "structure" refers only to buildings,
as it usually does. Else even fences would be prohibited too, as well
as basketball hoops.

-=-
Alan AB2OS


Alan Beagley wrote in message ...
I am still waiting for the lawyer to review the CC&Rs for the property
we are hoping to buy, but in the meantime . . .

Does anybody have any knowledge or experience whether a tower is a
"structure," as the term is used in CC&Rs? -- e.g., "No structure may
be erected on any of the lots except for a single-family dwelling . . .
[then come the size limitations}. No more than one outbuilding may be
erected on any lot . . . [then come the size limitations}."

The context suggests that "structure" means "building," but if it
includes towers, then would it not also include the set-in-concrete
basketball hoops that abound in the subdivision? Not to mention the
amateur radio tower that is already there on another lot -- but I want
to make sure that the owner isn't simply "getting away with it" because
he has nice neighbors, whereas we might turn out to have not-so-nice ones.

On 24 Sep 2003 19:28:41 -0700, (Alan) wrote:

Talked to the lawyer (an ARRL Volunteer Counsel) today. He said nobody
had ever asked the question before, but, without doing $1000 worth of
research (which still would provide no definitive answer), he was of
the opinion that in this context "structure" refers only to buildings,
as it usually does. Else even fences would be prohibited too, as well
as basketball hoops.

It depends on the context in which it was used. In our township a
tower is defined as a structure, *BUT* there are towers and there are
towers. The tower is a structure and any tower *over 80 feet requires
a permit, must meet engineering safety requirements (they accepted the
ROHN catalog, and must meet setback requirements.
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/tower.htm

Lightweight TV towers or shorter ham towers are a subset of structure
that is not regulated except for the set back rules. Here you could
put up a ham tower of ROHN 45 G or one of the big crank up towers
without even needing a permit as long as the tower is not over 80 feet
in height. (from ground level to top and won't land on your neighbor's
property if it falls over)

However the *tower* is the structure, never mind that there is heavy
steel masting that extends 30 feet above the top of the tower with 6
antennas on it.. They count only the supporting tower height. However
the tower installation must be engineered to withstand the wind loads
from all that *stuff* on top.

I can speak only for my specific circumstances, but fences are defined
as ...well...fences. Yah, it is a structure and as such fences are
regulated and may be no more than a certain height and must be some
specific distance back from the lot line. Basket ball hoops are not
defined as structures, but only accessories, or external attachments
which are actually prohibited by some CC&Rs

IOW, it doesn't matter even what the rest of us have had to do, it
depends on your specific circumstances, CC&Rs if any, zoning, and the
Home Owners Association.

Remember that although there is federal pre-emption, set back rules
and safety take precedence. My lot is 200 feet on a side, so with the
tower mounted in the center of the lot I can go no more than 100 feet
without permission from my neighbors. Setback just means, if it falls
over it lands on my property and that is an acceptable pre-emption.

BTW, the "neighborhood lightening rod" took a hit at 4:53:41 Wednesday
afternoon according to my UPS monitor. Other than that every thing is
still working and was up and running when the strike occurred.

I haven't been up on top to take a look at things, but I'm trying to
finish up the winterizing of the antennas system before the weather
gets bad. That included letting the center mast down, replacing the
jumpers from the top of the tower to the arrays, repairing the center
support on the C3i 7L 6-meter Yagi, and then putting it all back up.
The mast alone weighs close to 300#. I use a 25 foot SS come along to
raise and lower the mast which anchors in two ROHN 3" thrust bearings
with the Big Boy Rotor mounted about 20 feet down in the tower.


Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

-=-
Alan AB2OS


Alan Beagley wrote in message ...
I am still waiting for the lawyer to review the CC&Rs for the property
we are hoping to buy, but in the meantime . . .

Does anybody have any knowledge or experience whether a tower is a
"structure," as the term is used in CC&Rs? -- e.g., "No structure may
be erected on any of the lots except for a single-family dwelling . . .
[then come the size limitations}. No more than one outbuilding may be
erected on any lot . . . [then come the size limitations}."

The context suggests that "structure" means "building," but if it
includes towers, then would it not also include the set-in-concrete
basketball hoops that abound in the subdivision? Not to mention the
amateur radio tower that is already there on another lot -- but I want
to make sure that the owner isn't simply "getting away with it" because
he has nice neighbors, whereas we might turn out to have not-so-nice ones.