I am still waiting for the lawyer to review the CC&Rs for the property
we are hoping to buy, but in the meantime . . .

Does anybody have any knowledge or experience whether a tower is a
"structure," as the term is used in CC&Rs? -- e.g., "No structure may
be erected on any of the lots except for a single-family dwelling . . .
[then come the size limitations}. No more than one outbuilding may be
erected on any lot . . . [then come the size limitations}."

The context suggests that "structure" means "building," but if it
includes towers, then would it not also include the set-in-concrete
basketball hoops that abound in the subdivision? Not to mention the
amateur radio tower that is already there on another lot -- but I want
to make sure that the owner isn't simply "getting away with it" because
he has nice neighbors, whereas we might turn out to have not-so-nice ones.

Alan AB2OS

Alan Beagley wrote:

Does anybody have any knowledge or experience whether a tower is a
"structure," as the term is used in CC&Rs? -- e.g., "No structure may
be erected on any of the lots except for a single-family dwelling . . .
[then come the size limitations}. No more than one outbuilding may be
erected on any lot . . . [then come the size limitations}."

Of course it is a structure. After all, even when you apply for a permit
in a non-CC&R-infested area, everyone recommends applying for an
"antenna support structure", not a tower.
Besides, the whole idea behind CC&R's is to prohibit anything other than
houses in the neighborhood.

The context suggests that "structure" means "building," but if it
includes towers, then would it not also include the set-in-concrete
basketball hoops that abound in the subdivision? Not to mention the
amateur radio tower that is already there on another lot -- but I want
to make sure that the owner isn't simply "getting away with it" because
he has nice neighbors, whereas we might turn out to have not-so-nice ones.

This just means that CC&R's are not being enforced strictly, so any
towers you erected, even if you got an official permit for, would be
violating them. You'd likely never win against the association if they
took you to court, because generally the fact that others are violating
them freely does not give you permission to do the same. It's too risky.

I'd keep looking if I were you.

73 ... WA7AA


--

Anti-spam measu look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly

On 09/20/03 02:38 pm Zoran Brlecic put fingers to keyboard and launched
the following message into cyberspace:

Does anybody have any knowledge or experience whether a tower is a
"structure," as the term is used in CC&Rs? -- e.g., "No structure may
be erected on any of the lots except for a single-family dwelling . .
. [then come the size limitations}. No more than one outbuilding may
be erected on any lot . . . [then come the size limitations}."

Of course it is a structure. After all, even when you apply for a permit
in a non-CC&R-infested area, everyone recommends applying for an
"antenna support structure", not a tower.
Besides, the whole idea behind CC&R's is to prohibit anything other than
houses in the neighborhood.

This just means that CC&R's are not being enforced strictly, so any
towers you erected, even if you got an official permit for, would be
violating them. You'd likely never win against the association if they
took you to court, because generally the fact that others are violating
them freely does not give you permission to do the same. It's too risky.

The township has no rules at all for a tower under 70 feet used by a
federally licensed amateur radio operator. They don't even require a
building permit to make sure that it's safe.

If there ever was a Homeowners' Association, it has been defunct for years.

And I read of a case where a judge ruled that non-enforcement of the
rules did in fact make the rules of no effect. The HA (or the neighbors)
objected when somebody put up a basketball hoop. When evidence was
presented that there were already 28 basketball hoops in the
subdivision, the judge said that they couldn't suddenly start enforcing
the rules now when they hadn't in the past. (This was not in the same
subdivision, of course.)

-=-
Alan AB2OS

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 01:09:41 GMT, Alan Beagley
wrote:

The township has no rules at all for a tower under 70 feet used by a
federally licensed amateur radio operator. They don't even require a
building permit to make sure that it's safe.

Hi Alan,

How does your insurance provider feel about that?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I am fully intending to follow the tower manufacturer's specifications
for the footing, so I don't see why that should worry the insurer.

Anyway, this whole deal is conditional on a favorable legal
interpretation of the CC&Rs, so we may have to start searching for a
house all over again.

-=-
Alan


On 09/20/03 09:31 pm Richard Clark put fingers to keyboard and launched
the following message into cyberspace:

The township has no rules at all for a tower under 70 feet used by a
federally licensed amateur radio operator. They don't even require a
building permit to make sure that it's safe.

How does your insurance provider feel about that?

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:14:53 GMT, Alan Beagley
wrote:

I am fully intending to follow the tower manufacturer's specifications
for the footing, so I don't see why that should worry the insurer.

Anyway, this whole deal is conditional on a favorable legal
interpretation of the CC&Rs, so we may have to start searching for a
house all over again.

-=-
Alan

Hi Alan,

It won't worry any insurer, they will simply walk away from a claim;
if one walks the others will ask why. If none can be found to replace
the first, then the bank will call the full note due. All rather
typical legalese in the fine print. An attorney is as likely to be
ignorant of these as anyone unless their specialty is real estate law
(I visited one with exactly that point of experience, spent less too
by spending more once.)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Alan Beagley wrote:

This just means that CC&R's are not being enforced strictly, so any
towers you erected, even if you got an official permit for, would be
violating them. You'd likely never win against the association if they
took you to court, because generally the fact that others are
violating them freely does not give you permission to do the same.
It's too risky.

The township has no rules at all for a tower under 70 feet used by a
federally licensed amateur radio operator. They don't even require a
building permit to make sure that it's safe.

If there ever was a Homeowners' Association, it has been defunct for years.

Then you don't have to comply with the CC&R's at all, because there is
no one to enforce them. Make sure it is 100% defunct, though.

And I read of a case where a judge ruled that non-enforcement of the
rules did in fact make the rules of no effect. The HA (or the neighbors)
objected when somebody put up a basketball hoop. When evidence was
presented that there were already 28 basketball hoops in the
subdivision, the judge said that they couldn't suddenly start enforcing
the rules now when they hadn't in the past. (This was not in the same
subdivision, of course.)

Right, but this is the case of a discriminate enforcement of one rule
(iow, the fact that this particular rule was broken would not give you
permission to violate other rules). Unfortunately (or maybe not) for
your case, there are no 28 amateur radio towers in that subdivision.
That's where it gets tricky in the case of a lawsuit with only one other
tower used as a precedent.

But, again, if the HOA is definitely dead, CC&R's are a worthless
document. You may be lucky.


73 ... WA7AA


--

Anti-spam measu look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly

On 09/21/03 01:52 am Zoran Brlecic put fingers to keyboard and launched
the following message into cyberspace:

If there ever was a Homeowners' Association, it has been defunct for
years.

Then you don't have to comply with the CC&R's at all, because there is
no one to enforce them. Make sure it is 100% defunct, though.

That would be nice if it were true, but I think that any other
homeowner(s) in the subdivision could file suit if they had deep enough
pockets.

-=-
Alan AB2OS

Alan Beagley wrote:
On 09/21/03 01:52 am Zoran Brlecic put fingers to keyboard and launched
the following message into cyberspace:

If there ever was a Homeowners' Association, it has been defunct for
years.


Then you don't have to comply with the CC&R's at all, because there is
no one to enforce them. Make sure it is 100% defunct, though.


That would be nice if it were true, but I think that any other
homeowner(s) in the subdivision could file suit if they had deep enough
pockets.

I admit this is best left to lawyers, but generally CC&R's are passed on
from the developer only to the HOA, not to the individual owners. Once
the HOA dissolves, CC&R's are not binding and individuals have no legal
ground to pursue the matters based on them.

Good luck,

WA7AA


--

Anti-spam measu look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly

Still waiting for the lawyer, but I just thought of something else:
Since it seems so many people (hams and others) don't find out about the
CC&Rs until it is too late (i.e., they were never disclosed, even at
closing), I wonder how many of the other property owners in this
subdivision even know about them.

-=-
Alan


On 09/21/03 09:43 am Alan Beagley put fingers to keyboard and launched
the following message into cyberspace:

That would be nice if it were true, but I think that any other
homeowner(s) in the subdivision could file suit if they had deep enough
pockets.