Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#33
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:06:21 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote: On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:25:02 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:54:25 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote: [snip] However, I have friends that bought into the "planned community" philosophy and are stuck with CC&R's from hell. Basically, anything that can be seen from ground level is unacceptable. In the CC&R's I've read, solar arrays are certainly not allowed, especially on the roof. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/ate/story?id=45648 I've found the local cities and county bureaucracy on behalf of various homeowners. Batting average is about 50%. [snip] Check your state laws, solar is allowed, period, here in AZ... irrespective of HOA regulations. ...Jim Thompson The State of Schwarzenegger has had a "Solar Right Act" since 1978. See: http://www.sandiego.edu/epic/publications/documents/070123_RightsActPaperFINAL.pdf The Calif Civil Code Section 714 limits the power of HOA's and governments to restrict solar installations. http://www.akeena.net/cm/About_Solar_Power/California_Civil_Code_714.html The problem is that term there seems to be some variations in what constitutes "reasonable restrictions" which are allowed by the law. If the purpose of the CC&R's is to maintain some semblance of aesthetic integrity, the local courts have ruled it "reasonable" for them to block the installation of just about anything with a visual impact. The interpretation of "reasonable" varies in different jurisdictions but locally, it seems almost random. Incidentally, I've read CC&R's that were apparently written perhaps 50 years ago. They're full of restrictions based on race, color, ethnicity, and such, which are obviously unenforceable. The buyers were told that that the old contract is good enough because anything that's illegal won't be enforced. These contracts tend to also have very broad clauses blocking "anything with an aesthetic impact" and such, which is where the solar prohibition originated. One contract I've read itemized examples of prohibited installations, which included all forms of antennas and mentioned solar panels. Locally, one planning department imposed some siting and support structure restrictions that effectively prevented installing of any solar panels. That apparently was accidental, but it took a year and an expensive legal action to get them to admit that they goofed. One homeowner wanted a variance to install the solar panels very close to the property line. No CC&R's. The variance was denied because of neighbors protests. It went to court and he lost. Another tried to get his radio tower approved on the basis of it providing supports for his tower mounted solar panels. That also was denied. -- # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 # http://802.11junk.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
matching masts as vertical antennas. | Antenna | |||
FS: Mosley CM-1 Receiver and Matching Speaker | Boatanchors | |||
Z matching of antennas | Antenna | |||
FS: Knight R-100A Receiver and matching speaker. | Boatanchors | |||
FS: Knight R-100A Receiver and matching speaker. | Boatanchors |