[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] CC&R's

To: "Jim Miller" <JimMiller@STL-Online.Net>,"Towertalk" <>,"Jim Lux" <>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] CC&R's
From: "Tom Champlin" <>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 10:41:59 -0600
List-post: <>
The ARRL web site has a sample letter to send to your Representative in 
Washington. The also have a finder for these Representatives. I just 
finished using this to send  a letter to mine. This concerns H.R. 1478, the 
"Amateur Radio Emergency Communications Consistency Act" which is apparently 
meant to force the HOA to go by PRB1, which would be great for hams. I will 
make an effort to study up on OTARD, PRB1, Etc.

I urge all hams to write their Reps about this very important bill.

73, Tom W0HH

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Lux" <>
To: "Jim Miller" <JimMiller@STL-Online.Net>; "Towertalk" 
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] CC&R's

> OTARD specifically excludes amateur radio, broadcast AM/FM, CB and the
> like.. Broadcast video (terrestrial, local stations only), satellite (DBS,
> 1m antenna size), and two way internet/video type services (MMDS)(I think
> the latter is for licensed only... no claiming OTARD for your massive 
> 802.11
> antenna)
> OTARD specifically does apply to HOAs, landlords, etc., and preempts
> contractual obligations, in addition to preempting local ordinances, state
> laws, etc..  PRB-1 was specifically at governmental agencies (ordinances,
> laws, etc.) but was (deliberately) silent on contractual obligations (i.e.
> CC&Rs).
> The problem with OTARD is that it doesn't apply to amateur radio (unless 
> you
> want to claim that your 40m 5 element beam is "designed to receive local
> terrestrial TV broadcasts").  However, it is useful none the less.
> The beauty of OTARD, in regards to amateur radio, is that it can force a
> rewriting of the "antenna rules" in your HOA.  If you can manage this
> process, then you can get the rules rewritten in a general way that won't
> specifically prohibit amateur radio. HOAs hate to revise rules repeatedly,
> especially under the gun of Federal preemption, so you can create some 
> "fear
> uncertainty and doubt" about whether the rules might change again and
> convince the HOA it's better to have a generic, fairly inclusive rule. ->
> reasonable accomodation, visual impact reduction, etc., rather than 
> outright
> prohibition.
> If you take the tack of presenting yourself as a reasonable, knowledgeable
> person about antennas in general, you might get to write the rule.
> Obviously, you're never going to get a rule through that permits a 100 
> foot
> tower with a full size 80 meter beam, but, you might get rule that allows
> antenna support structures to support broadcast TV antennas (as explicitly
> required by the FCC), and then, make sure the rule doesn't proscribe 
> adding
> other antennas (like that UHF/VHF beam, or dipoles, or a variety of 
> antennas
> that aren't too visually obtrusive).
> Certainly, you could get onerous rules like "no transmitters" eliminated.
> Study up on the otard rules, and particularly, look through those cases 
> that
> the FCC cites, because being knowledgeable about those helps a lot.  There
> WILL be discussion with your HOA board and the management rep about
> requiring permits, fees, fixed locations, etc., and you need to be able to
> say, not only does the FCC rules prohibit that, but a HOA in Maryland 
> wrote
> a rule just like the one you're proposing, and got their hands slapped,
> expensively. Print them out, for your HOA board to read (or at least to 
> make
> it look like you've done your homework).
> has summaries of some of the
> cases, although I think I updated it last summer, and I'm sure there's new
> material I need to add.
> In my case, they went through several revisions, all totally unacceptable,
> FCC wise. I patiently identified why it wasn't a good rule, mailing out
> dozens of pages, with highlighting and sticky notes to tell them where 
> their
> proposed rule matched, word for word, the rule the FCC objected to.  Each
> time, I proposed a new wording. Patience, and be aware that you may not 
> win
> in the long run.
> By the way, one reason that they hate to change rules is that, often, 
> states
> impose a series of requirements on HOA rules, but give them a grandfather
> exception, until they change any rule, which triggers all the state
> requirements.  Example, California passed a law a year or so back about 
> pets
> in CIDs (common interest developments) and said explicitly that the HOA
> rules must be changed to conform. However, the law said that the HOA 
> didn't
> have to bring it's rules into conformance until they made another change.
> So, the change in antenna rules prompted a change in the pet rules.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Miller" <JimMiller@STL-Online.Net>
> To: "Jim Lux" <>; "Towertalk" 
> <>
> Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 9:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] CC&R's
> > How does the OTARD rule apply or not apply to amateur radio antennas
> > possibly even support "structures"? -
> > -
> "the
> > FCC extended to antennas that receive and transmit telecommunications 
> > and
> > other fixed wireless signals its existing prohibition" (continued)
> >
> > It appears to me this is just what we need.  How not so?
> > Does this apply to municipalities again and exclude HOA's?
> >
> > tnx es 73, de Jim KG0KP
> _______________________________________________
> See:  for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless 
> Weather Stations", and lot's more.  Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with 
> any questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list

See:  for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather 
Stations", and lot's more.  Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions 
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.

TowerTalk mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>