At 09:11 AM 5/14/2007, Krish wrote:
> 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 committee".
> 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
> fair consideration.
Hmm.. in California, at least, it would be hard to do this, since the
board meetings must be open to the public with minutes published
etc. If two board members happened to discuss it on the side, they'd
be required to publish a summary of their discussions. Mind you, not
all boards are good about complying with the Davis-Stirling Act
(which is what governs the sunshine and open meetings for Common
> 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. Where the
> 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 the several
> lawsuits they have had over the years.
Seems to me that if they have lawsuits, they've got some problems
with their standards...
TowerTalk mailing list