I bought the same type of property (3.5 acres) you describe in a $1 to $5
million dollar gated subdivision Marvin/Charlotte, NC and thought if I could
get the Developer to sign and record a simple document permitting a crank-up
tower before the sale, I would be fine. This was to be the last great house
that my wife wanted before our ultimate retirement with the best crank-up
tower and antenna I ever had place situated in between tall trees.
The Developer controlled the HOA initially until it was handed over to the
citizens of the gated subdivision. Boy did my problems begin when the HOA
took issue with the Developer's waiver and I am caught in the middle. I am
still going through all of this 18 months later, with the Developer on my
side, fighting an angry HOA President who is inflexible, has an axe to
grind with the Developer, and does not want to recognize any previous
recorded agreement. I have spent over $7,000 in legal fees so far not to
mention the planting of three 18 foot tall evergreen trees to help screen
the tower for a cost of $7,300 more. And I will probably have to plant more
trees to help settle this. While I think the law is on my side, it is very
expensive to hire attorneys to research my rights and respond to letters
from the HOA attorneys.
While I relied on a local real estate attorney to bless this transaction
initially, I find most attorneys do not really understand ham radio and some
of the laws that could affect an antenna or what I was trying to accomplish.
I ended up retaining Fred Hopengarten, Antenna Zoning author and attorney,
to help me and my local counsel deal with these issues. He is reasonably
priced and worth his weight in gold as both a strategist and lawyer. He
understands the issues you must maneuver through and has dealt with
countless tower issues and solutions a ham will encounter. Even though he
is located in Massachusetts, he is a call or email away and I wish I had
involved him with this real estate transaction at the very beginning of the
I would recommend to every ham contemplating a purchase in a subdivision
where the Developer is going to give you a recorded waiver to put up your
tower to contact Fred or an expert like him. What appears to be a simple
waiver transaction can be fraught with problems down the road as I found
Rick Kourey (K4KL)
Marvin -- Charlotte, NC
----- Original Message -----
From: "W4LDE-Ron" <email@example.com>
To: "Krish" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "Dan Zimmerman N3OX" <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Got a tower/antenna in a CC&R subdivision?
> Well like many Hams that have non-ham wives it's very hard to tell the
> XYL she can't have that house she's dreamed of because we can't put up
> an antenna, at least not this OM's XYL.
> I am in the stage of looking at property south-west of Atlanta, most if
> not all of the new sub-divisions have some verbage or wording that
> restricts any kind of antenna, however, after several interesting
> discussions with builders I found that most of the HOA's and
> Architectural committees are under control of the developers until the
> sub-division is completed, thats how the developers protect themselves
> from Owner controlled HOA's and changes that would cost them (Developer
> and Builder) money. That's the magic word.
> I started talking to one specific builder about six months ago before
> the current slow down in the homes market and was flat told "No
> antennas" about 1-month ago after being persistent I was told we will
> need to check if the Developer will allow it and amend the CCR's or
> provide a change via the architectural committee. Two weeks ago I got a
> call from the builder stating that I can get the variance to erect a
> tower on the back of a specific lot (heavily Treed lot that is) and use
> what I had originally suggested which is a crank up US tower
> (needle-pole style) Since most of the trees are from 20 to 40ft I
> submitted a 22ft to 55ft cranked up with a SteppIR on top and a double
> extended 80 meter zepp on an acre of heavily wooded lot.
> The builder wants to include the tower base in the cost of the home with
> conduits for antenna cables and power from the house to the base as part
> of the permit drawings, thus avoiding trouble down the road from the
> local municipality. All of this will be done under the scrutiny of a
> real estate lawyer.
> I can attest that it is very difficult to find a new home, I am not a
> wealthy individual but was willing to spend more to get the right kind
> of property where antennas would not become a legal issue. It's been a
> real hassle and several real estate agents have given up trying to find
> that new home for me. One has stayed the course and you bet she will
> get my business.
> Right now in my opinion the market is right to get what we need if it is
> a new home, with existing HOA's and firm CCR's then I would stay very
> clear of them. I was looking at a great home with 2-acres and big trees
> in all of the right places and for the right price where home owners
> could have horses on there property but I found way down in the fine
> print "No antennas except for satellite dishes of 18" or smaller" What
> a disappointment. I currently live just outside of Orlando in a
> restricted HOA but where antennas are not out-lawed. Amazing, there's
> lots of hams in the community.
> Unfortunately this issue is not going away unless the Fed's do it for
> us, developers have the money to protect what they perceive as a
> possible treat to their success, most by being uniformed, the only
> reason for this restriction in the location I am looking at is "Hams
> cause TV interference". . Bottom line, be persistent with positive
> aspects of the need for an antenna as recommended by others, get to now
> the builder and the developer, understand the home market and support
> any bill with respect to HOA's-CCR-Deed restriction of antenna's.
> 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.
>> 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
>> cranked up.
>> 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 permission. In
>> 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. 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.
>> 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
> TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk mailing list