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

Alan Beagley wrote:

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}."

Of course it is a structure. After all, even when you apply for a permit
in a non-CC&R-infested area, everyone recommends applying for an
"antenna support structure", not a tower.
Besides, the whole idea behind CC&R's is to prohibit anything other than
houses in the neighborhood.

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.

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.

I'd keep looking if I were you.

73 ... WA7AA


--

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

David Robbins wrote:

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}."

Of course it is a structure. After all, even when you apply for a permit
in a non-CC&R-infested area, everyone recommends applying for an
"antenna support structure", not a tower.
Besides, the whole idea behind CC&R's is to prohibit anything other than
houses in the neighborhood.


not in this town.. according to our local zoning and assessing people it has
to have a roof to be a 'structure' here. this is a question best asked of a
local lawyer who knows the local rules.

If that's the case in his town, then I'd be shocked if antenna towers
were not prohibited explicitly in that CC&R. Either way, he has to see a
lawyer.


73 ... WA7AA


--

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

On 09/20/03 02:38 pm Zoran Brlecic put fingers to keyboard and launched
the following message into cyberspace:

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}."

Of course it is a structure. After all, even when you apply for a permit
in a non-CC&R-infested area, everyone recommends applying for an
"antenna support structure", not a tower.
Besides, the whole idea behind CC&R's is to prohibit anything other than
houses in the neighborhood.

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.

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.)

-=-
Alan AB2OS

On 09/20/03 04:45 pm Zoran Brlecic put fingers to keyboard and launched
the following message into cyberspace:

Of course it is a structure. After all, even when you apply for a permit
in a non-CC&R-infested area, everyone recommends applying for an
"antenna support structure", not a tower.
Besides, the whole idea behind CC&R's is to prohibit anything other than
houses in the neighborhood.

not in this town.. according to our local zoning and assessing people
it has
to have a roof to be a 'structure' here. this is a question best
asked of a
local lawyer who knows the local rules.

If that's the case in his town, then I'd be shocked if antenna towers
were not prohibited explicitly in that CC&R. Either way, he has to see a
lawyer.

No mention of towers or antennas in the CC&Rs for this subdivision.

-=-
Alan AB2OS

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 01:09:41 GMT, Alan Beagley
wrote:

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.

Hi Alan,

How does your insurance provider feel about that?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I am fully intending to follow the tower manufacturer's specifications
for the footing, so I don't see why that should worry the insurer.

Anyway, this whole deal is conditional on a favorable legal
interpretation of the CC&Rs, so we may have to start searching for a
house all over again.

-=-
Alan


On 09/20/03 09:31 pm Richard Clark put fingers to keyboard and launched
the following message into cyberspace:

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.

How does your insurance provider feel about that?

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:14:53 GMT, Alan Beagley
wrote:

I am fully intending to follow the tower manufacturer's specifications
for the footing, so I don't see why that should worry the insurer.

Anyway, this whole deal is conditional on a favorable legal
interpretation of the CC&Rs, so we may have to start searching for a
house all over again.

-=-
Alan

Hi Alan,

It won't worry any insurer, they will simply walk away from a claim;
if one walks the others will ask why. If none can be found to replace
the first, then the bank will call the full note due. All rather
typical legalese in the fine print. An attorney is as likely to be
ignorant of these as anyone unless their specialty is real estate law
(I visited one with exactly that point of experience, spent less too
by spending more once.)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

You mean that the insurer will require the installation to be inspected
and a certificate of safety be issued, even though the only body with
the authority to do this (i.e., the township's building dept.) does not
require it and might refuse to do it even if asked?

-=-
Alan AB2OS


On 09/20/03 10:33 pm Richard Clark put fingers to keyboard and launched
the following message into cyberspace:

I am fully intending to follow the tower manufacturer's specifications
for the footing, so I don't see why that should worry the insurer.

It won't worry any insurer, they will simply walk away from a claim;
if one walks the others will ask why. If none can be found to replace
the first, then the bank will call the full note due. All rather
typical legalese in the fine print. An attorney is as likely to be
ignorant of these as anyone unless their specialty is real estate law
(I visited one with exactly that point of experience, spent less too
by spending more once.)

I was advised by a Finnish ham that the rules are a lot
looser for temporary
structures - and the tower is only bolted to the house and
is therefore 'temporary'

Maybe worth a try?
:-)

Murray

Alan Beagley wrote:

You mean that the insurer will require the installation to be inspected
and a certificate of safety be issued, even though the only body with
the authority to do this (i.e., the township's building dept.) does not
require it and might refuse to do it even if asked?

-=-
Alan AB2OS

On 09/20/03 10:33 pm Richard Clark put fingers to keyboard and launched
the following message into cyberspace:

I am fully intending to follow the tower manufacturer's specifications
for the footing, so I don't see why that should worry the insurer.

It won't worry any insurer, they will simply walk away from a claim;
if one walks the others will ask why. If none can be found to replace
the first, then the bank will call the full note due. All rather
typical legalese in the fine print. An attorney is as likely to be
ignorant of these as anyone unless their specialty is real estate law
(I visited one with exactly that point of experience, spent less too
by spending more once.)

--
************************************************** ****************
* Murray Kelly vk4aok
*
* 6 Spyglass Place, Oxley Ridge QLD. 4075.
Australia *
* ph/fax Intl+ 61 7 3879
7968 *
************************************************** ****************