Let me give some more information on the situation.
The covenant goes like this
"All antenna requests will need to be approved by the Architectural review
If there is a request that comes along and is something that does not fit the
bill, the Arch committe
will deny the request and send it to the board to make a consideration.
My original proposal had a stepper at the top of the crankup and a TV antenna
at the bottom of
the crankup. I sent in a copy of the 1996 OTARD ruling as well. The stepper
was hand drawn
in the proposal along with a copy of the aluma tower brochure. The Arch
committee has never
seen a setup like this, so was unable to perceive and they just denied it.
Well, they did not even
take up on my request to present it to the committee. In my subdivision, the
arch committee is a
inclusive group unknown to the public for fear of retribution. Hence my gripe
that there was no
Now the board is looking into the merits. In the meanwhile, i had someone
measure the offset
from the roof to the tower when the antenna is installed. We found that it
will be entirely below
the roof when down, and blend well with the trees behind the tower when
I ran around and got about 70% of the neighbors sign off. Some in person by
knocking the door,
but a few others by sending in mail with return postage. About 3 out of 5 that
i mailed never
returned it. Perhaps procrastination or they have opinions. No one objected
except one guy who
does not see the tower and is a next door neighbor. He is located at the other
side of the tower.
When i ran the idea by him, he wanted the tower to be placed not near his
property , but the
other side. I complied and changed the proposal after getting the other owners
Dec, this guy did not voice out any concern, but in April, he says he has
concerns. I have over
70% approval from those directly impacted, so i have pushed it to the board.
The board wants
to do their due diligence and talk to the neighbors to see what they feel.
However, this is a gray
area. I don't know what they talk. I am sure they won't be talking about Otard
and TV antennas.
Hence i am doing everything right to keep a positive attitude after waiting
for 3 months now. I am
a solid contributor on the board. The board knows it and the people know it.
Arch committee falters, with trying to impose fines for compliance, i am out
there working with
people the friendly way and working out the differences to achieve compliance.
I hate this
anonymous Arch committee crap. But they say that people won't volunteer after
lawsuits they have had over the years.
Dan Zimmerman N3OX wrote:
> WB2WIK says:
> >however none of them had any CC&Rs or HOAs involved
> Steve, thanks for chiming in... I hadn't thought about that, though it
> seems that Krish's HOA is considering allowing this installation even
> though they could likely outvote him and reject it out of hand.
> W6WRT says, regarding promises of money:
> >A person's or business's "word" is backed up my money all the time.
> It's how our
> >civil justice system works, like it or not.
> Absolutely, but the suggestion to put in writing that you'll make up
> the difference in property values is essentially settling a number of
> lawsuits that haven't yet been brought against you, and that seems a
> little much to me!
> I agree with you, and with Steve, and you can be sure that the YL and
> I are staying faaaaaar away from HOA-encumbered properties when it's
> time to buy. That said, it sounds like Krish has a shot at convincing
> the board to allow a reasonable installation within the regulatory
> framework of his HOA, which is something that absolutely should be
> When the HOA says "No, you cannot put up a tower, period," that's when
> the suggestion to just move is appropriate.
> TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk mailing list