|
PRB-1 and CCNR's
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:39:15 CST, Cecil Moore
wrote: Legally, it is not a contract unless you agree to it. What would happen if you simply crossed out the antenna restrictions clause before signing the contract? Both the contract and state law says that you agree to all recorded CC&Rs on file. Usually one of the CC&Rs is that you will comply with HOA regulations. An individual buyer cannot modify such restrictions unilaterally. There may - or may not - be a provision for modifying them spelled out in the CC&Rs or HOA Regulations themselves, but that usually requires a unanimous or super-majority vote of all those to whom the restriction applies (lots of luck). The only other way is that some states permit a homeowner to sue for a declaration that the restriction is unreasonable and therefore unenforceable, but the burden of proving unreasonableness is very high and is on the homeowner seeking relief. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane ARRL Volunteer Counsel email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
Covenants, Conditions, AND Restrictions = CC & R's, not CCNR's.
No, I don't think the Homeowner's Association is going to agree to a crossed out antenna restriction, even if the seller does. The seller does not represent the HOA. The HOA, however, *may* grant an exception if requested. N7SO |
PRB-1 and CCNR's
On Mar 10, 11:12 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
KC4UAI wrote: This is important to me because I live in a deed restricted community with a very picky HOA. Did you previously agree to the restrictions? If so, it is likely a legally enforceable contract between you and the other party. In all fairness, Yes and no. Did I know about the restrictions? Yes, however, unless I had asked about antennas, the only thing I would have been told was that there was a HOA and they collected dues to support the community pool. But, I really had no other choice at the time and don't really have one now. There simply are no similar houses in the area that would not have CCNRs where I could relocate to. The problem here is that the CCNR's are not a contract between me and the HOA per-say, but an agreement with every other lot owner in the subdivision. This means I could go the the HOA and get an agreement to alter the CCNRs but my neighbor could still choose to enforce the CCNRs himself even if the HOA declined. The only way to change the CCNR's is to get *every* party of the contract (all 250+ lot owners) to agree. My only real option is a federal rule similar to PRB-1 and what it does for broadcast and data services. (or wining the lottery or finding some non-existent house w/o CCNR's that the XYL and I can live with..) -= Bob =- |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
On Mar 17, 12:12�am, "KC4UAI" wrote:
On Mar 10, 11:12 am, Cecil Moore wrote: KC4UAI wrote: This is important to me because I live in a deed restricted community with a very picky HOA. Did you previously agree to the restrictions? If so, it is likely a legally enforceable contract between you and the other party. In all fairness, Yes and no. *Did I know about the restrictions? *Yes, however, unless I had asked about antennas, the only thing I would have been told was that there was a HOA and they collected dues to support the community pool. *But, I really had no other choice at the time and don't really have one now. *There simply are no similar houses in the area that would not have CCNRs where I could relocate to. Which is the textbook definition of a "contract of adhesion", IMHO. The problem here is that the CCNR's are not a contract between me and the HOA per-say, but an agreement with every other lot owner in the subdivision. *This means I could go the the HOA and get an agreement to alter the CCNRs but my neighbor could still choose to enforce the CCNRs himself even if the HOA declined. *The only way to change the CCNR's is to get *every* party of the contract (all 250+ lot owners) to agree. * Another way of making them practically unchangeable. My only real option is a federal rule similar to PRB-1 and what it does for broadcast and data services. (or wining the lottery or finding some non-existent house w/o CCNR's that the XYL and I can live with..) This is where real estate differs from other purchases IMHO. Unlike almost everything else, RE is in limited supply and not portable. They're not making much more of it, either. Plus you cannot buy what isn't for sale. Most of all, RE is often a joint purchase that affects many people, rather than just one. Getting family agreement is the reality of most modern families. KC4UAI does have some possible options besides those listed: 1) Watch the RE ads and websites looking for a unrestricted house - and be ready to jump on it if on does appear. 2) Look for brand-new developments, and offer to buy only if the developer (who almost always is the one who adds the restrictions) does not include the anti-antenna CC&Rs on the house. It probably will not have an effect right away, but after a while the developers might get the message that they are losing sales because of the restrictions. 3) Save up for the dream house out beyond the restrictions. 4) Figure out ways to get a ruling like the OTARD one for amateur antennas. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
PRB-1 and CCNR's
KC4UAI wrote:
There simply are no similar houses in the area that would not have CCNRs where I could relocate to. CC&Rs are a part of the price one pays for a house and I, for one, am not willing to pay a price that prohibits amateur radio antennas. That price is just too high. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
PRB-1 and CCNR's
In article ,
Phil Kane wrote: On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:12:14 CST, Cecil Moore wrote: Did you previously agree to the restrictions? If so, it is likely a legally enforceable contract between you and the other party. Cecil, look up the term "contract of adhesion" in a legal text on contracts. It is a "take it or leave it" situation where there is no real bargaining. In California, where I practice state law, a deed restriction or HOA regulation can be declared unenforceable if it is found to be unreasonable but the burden of proof of unreasonableness is on the homeowner seeking relief. -- As I understand Washington (state) law, the same is true here, plus if the regulation hasn't been enforced in years, or has been "selectively" enforced. Except for the race restriction found in some old CCNRs -- -------------------------------------------------------- Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read RV and Camping FAQ can be found at http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv |
PRB-1 and CCNR's
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 10:59:58 CST, Ralph E Lindberg
wrote: As I understand Washington (state) law, the same is true here, plus if the regulation hasn't been enforced in years, or has been "selectively" enforced. Except for the race restriction found in some old CCNRs That was thrown out by the Supreme Court of the United States in the landmark case _Shelley v Kraemer_ that everyone studies in Constitutional Law classes. The SCOTUS declared that a state court enforcing that restriction made it a state action and such discrimination was against Federal law, making that contract term unenforceable. We tried using that same approach to have PRB-1 apply via the back-door in _Hotz v Rich_. a mid-1990s CC&R case in California, but the California Court of Appeal shot us down, claiming that problems with amateur radio antennas did not reach the same level of public policy that racial discrimination did. -- Phil Kane Beaverton, OR |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
On Mar 17, 9:43 am, wrote:
2) Look for brand-new developments, and offer to buy only if the developer (who almost always is the one who adds the restrictions) does not include the anti-antenna CC&Rs on the house. It probably will not have an effect right away, but after a while the developers might get the message that they are losing sales because of the restrictions. It's an idea, but there are pitfalls here. Having a developer wave or change the CC&R's is an option, but only if he actually can. Assuming that the developer actually owns the land (all of it) and can make changes to the restrictions for you, how many will? Remember there are only about 600K of us nation wide, not a large percentage of the market there. I'll bet that even if we all did this, any single developer would only see this once in a blue moon and making changes in the boiler plate CC&R's would not be done. I'd also be afraid that the developer would try to give you a "waver letter" saying that the specific restriction in question didn't apply to you, but that's about as useful as the paper it's printed on once the development passes from developer control to HOA control. They wouldn't be bound by this "agreement" unless it's legally recorded on your title (and very likely on everybody else's titles as well.) About the only real option here (Apart from joining the HOA Board and bribing the rest of the voting members to get a temporary exception just for me) is to save up my pennies and move to the sticks once I retire in 20+ years. In the mean time I'm stuck with what I can hide in the attic of my single story home which is full of HVAC equipment, electrical, alarm, and phone wiring and Christmas decorations. -= bob =- |
PRB-1 and CCNR's
On Mar 17, 11:01 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
KC4UAI wrote: There simply are no similar houses in the area that would not have CCNRs where I could relocate to. CC&Rs are a part of the price one pays for a house and I, for one, am not willing to pay a price that prohibits amateur radio antennas. That price is just too high. But you may have the option to choose a house without them. I don't feel that I do at this point. It's not within my means within reasonable commute from where I work. I guess this doesn't have too much traction with the ham radio folks doe to the demographics involved. The Average ham is older than I am, with more options both financially and geographically than I have. They are more likely to be established in situations where they are not effected by deed restrictions, or have better options than I do. That doesn't mean that this issue is not important. I believe that it is very important to the future of the amateur radio service, right up there with defending the spectrum we have if not directly related to this issue. -= bob =- |
PRB-1 and CCNR's
KC4UAI wrote:
But you may have the option to choose a house without them. I don't feel that I do at this point. It's not within my means within reasonable commute from where I work. When I lived in AZ, I chose a two hour per day commute rather than antenna restrictions. Heck, I got in a lot of operating time during that two hours per day. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
On Mar 19, 2:00�pm, "KC4UAI" wrote:
On Mar 17, 9:43 am, wrote: 2) Look for brand-new developments, and offer to buy only if the developer (who almost always is the one who adds the restrictions) does not include the anti-antenna CC&Rs on the house. *It probably will not have an effect right away, but after a while the developers might get the message that they are losing sales because of the restrictions. It's an idea, but there are pitfalls here. *Having a developer wave or change the CC&R's is an option, but only if he actually can. Assuming that the developer actually owns the land (all of it) and can make changes to the restrictions for you, how many will? *Remember there are only about 600K of us nation wide, not a large percentage of the market there. I'll bet that even if we all did this, any single developer would only see this once in a blue moon and making changes in the boiler plate CC&R's would not be done. Still worth trying. If a developer starts losing sales because of CC&Rs, they may be more flexible. I don't know what the RE market is like in your area, but here in EPA it is not as much a seller's market as it was a few years ago. Sellers are making deals today that they'd never have made in 2000. I'd also be afraid that the developer would try to give you a "waver letter" saying that the specific restriction in question didn't apply to you, but that's about as useful as the paper it's printed on once the development passes from developer control to HOA control. *They wouldn't be bound by this "agreement" unless it's legally recorded on your title (and very likely on everybody else's titles as well.) That's why you need a competent real estate attorney, to see that the restrictions are completely removed from the deed in accordance with all applicable laws. Some things are *not* DIY. About the only real option here (Apart from joining the HOA Board and bribing the rest of the voting members to get a temporary exception just for me) is to save up my pennies and move to the sticks once I retire in 20+ years. *In the mean time I'm stuck with what I can hide in the attic of my single story home which is full of HVAC equipment, electrical, alarm, and phone wiring and Christmas decorations. I disagree! I think it's at least worth looking. IMHO, one of the biggest problems with buying real estate is that it's not something most people do often, nor when they choose to do it. The trick to getting the best RE deals is to simply watch the market in your target area, and be ready to jump when the right house shows up. But if you accept defeat before even trying..... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
|
PRB-1 and CC&R's
On Mar 21, 10:33�am, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote: On Mar 19, 2:00?pm, "KC4UAI" wrote: On Mar 17, 9:43 am, wrote: 2) Look for brand-new developments, and offer to buy only if the developer (who almost always is the one who adds the restrictions) does not include the anti-antenna CC&Rs on the house. *It probably will not have an effect right away, but after a while the developers might get the message that they are losing sales because of the restrictions. It's an idea, but there are pitfalls here. *Having a developer wave or change the CC&R's is an option, but only if he actually can. Assuming that the developer actually owns the land (all of it) and can make changes to the restrictions for you, how many will? *Remember there are only about 600K of us nation wide, not a large percentage of the market there. I'll bet that even if we all did this, any single developer would only see this once in a blue moon and making changes in the boiler plate CC&R's would not be done. Still worth trying. If a developer starts losing sales because of CC&Rs, they may be more flexible. I don't know what the RE market is like in your area, but here in EPA it is not as much a seller's market as it was a few years ago. Sellers are making deals today that they'd never have made in 2000. Agreed, Jim. It's a disaster up here. We don't have that problem here. But the market isn't as hot as it was a few years ago. That's true almost everywhere. Not only are new houses not selling, but there are going to be a lot of new ones coming on the market as the people who bought all the houses on the "voodoo mortgage plans" lose their homes as the payments double or more than double. Unfortunate but true. There was a time, not too long ago, when the lenders and regulations were *very* cautious about people's debt limits. Things were set up to prevent people from getting in too deep a hole. But in recent years, the opposite has become true. * * * * My point is that I would wager a beverage of your choice that at this time, if you approach a real estate agent or developer and let them know that the antenna restriction is there, you are going to walk - the restriction will go in a New York minute. I agree - *if* you are ready to buy, and *if* they can get rid of the restrictions. Side Note: The OTARD ruling is really just the tip of the iceberg IMHO. As energy prices rise, I think we will see more and more alternative-energy installations. For example, a solar hot-water- preheater could reduce the cost of domestic hot water. If the price of photovoltaic cells comes down enough, they could help reduce electricity cost. And of course there's wind energy. But such things are probably prohibited by many CC&Rs, for a bunch of reasons. We may see the day when such CC&Rs are being overturned because of the cost of energy. I'd also be afraid that the developer would try to give you a "waver letter" saying that the specific restriction in question didn't apply to you, but that's about as useful as the paper it's printed on once the development passes from developer control to HOA control. *They wouldn't be bound by this "agreement" unless it's legally recorded on your title (and very likely on everybody else's titles as well.) That's why you need a competent real estate attorney, to see that the restrictions are completely removed from the deed in accordance with all applicable laws. * * * * And how! When we bought our house, and at signing, our attorney found a lien on the place that wasn't found through the entire buying process. Apparently the previous owners knew about it too! *We were saved an unholy mess after the sale. He did his job well and didn't just accept the papers he was given. *We're a walking advertisement for the guy now. My RE attorney found all the deed restrictions on this house. Most of my neighbors had no idea they even existed. None of them are anti-antenna, and most (like setbacks and impervious-surface rules) have been superseded by local ordinances. * * * * One of the most fortunate bits of luck I had was that although I was about 5 years away from becoming a Ham when we bought it, the Neighborhood isn't antenna restricted, with the exception that if you put up a tower, it has to be far away enough from the neighbors that it won't fall on their house - seems reasonable to me! ;^) Depends on the size of the lot. On a lot that's , say, 100 feet wide, you can't put up a tower more than 50 feet high and have its "fall circle" not go over the property line. All I have to do is please the XYL, and I'm there. Yup. Some things are *not* DIY. Like The Law. I am still surprised at how people who wouldn't dream of working on their car, or their computer, etc., will think they have the expertise to do real estate buying and selling without a competent RE attorney looking things over. About the only real option here (Apart from joining the HOA Board and bribing the rest of the voting members to get a temporary exception just for me) is to save up my pennies and move to the sticks once I retire in 20+ years. *In the mean time I'm stuck with what I can hide in the attic of my single story home which is full of HVAC equipment, electrical, alarm, and phone wiring and Christmas decorations. I disagree! I think it's at least worth looking. * * * * People have pressed some unusual things into stealth antennas. What I meant was that even though KC4UAI thinks there are no unrestricted houses that are in his area and affordable, he should still keep looking. My very first antenna was a wire just above the roof line. It was only visible if you knew exactly where to look. And it worked okay, nothing great, but I could get a signal out. * * * * I suppose if a neighbor asked, you could tell them it was a roof moss control line... ;^) There you go! * * * * There are a lot of flag poles that have funny little boxes at the bottom, and a wire that runs into the basement also... In SNJ a few years back there was a case where a military veteran had all of his children on active military duty in the Middle East. They were in combat units, too. He put up a standard flagpole on his front lawn, and would fly the US flag every day. I saw pictures of the house - the flagpole was very nicely done, and not out of scale. The CC&Rs on the property did not allow flagpoles. The HOA fined the vet and took him to court when he would neither pay the fines nor take down the flagpole. I don't know how the case turned out. But I remember it when people say that if someone signs away their rights, they should stick to the rules. IMHO, one of the biggest problems with buying real estate is that it's not something most people do often, nor when they choose to do it. The trick to getting the best RE deals is to simply watch the market in your target area, and be ready to jump when the right house shows up. * * * * Yup. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
"Michael Coslo" wrote
People have pressed some unusual things into stealth antennas. My very first antenna was a wire just above the roof line. It was only visible if you knew exactly where to look. And it worked okay, nothing great, but I could get a signal out. I have the MFJ-1786 Hi-Q Loop (30-10 m) vertically mounted on a 5' tv mast in the middle of my small walled-in yard. It's easily visible from the main street that enters this HOA controlled subdivision, and in the 9 years I've lived here, NO one has said a word about it. If anyone were to ask, I would tell them it's a yard sculpture. (I painted the black plastic a light green to go with nearby trees.) The antenna works amazingly well, by the way. Howard N7SO |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
wrote in message oups.com... On Mar 21, 10:33�am, Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: On Mar 19, 2:00?pm, "KC4UAI" wrote: On Mar 17, 9:43 am, wrote: [snip] One of the most fortunate bits of luck I had was that although I was about 5 years away from becoming a Ham when we bought it, the Neighborhood isn't antenna restricted, with the exception that if you put up a tower, it has to be far away enough from the neighbors that it won't fall on their house - seems reasonable to me! ;^) Depends on the size of the lot. On a lot that's , say, 100 feet wide, you can't put up a tower more than 50 feet high and have its "fall circle" not go over the property line. Yet is that actually the correct way to calculate it? That assumes that the tower will break at the base and fall over from the base. This is not the common failure mode (or so I've been told). From one of the experts who was speaking to a city council meeting around here, the towers either twist like a corkscrew or bend over somewhere between the middle and top. The "corkscrew" is supposedly the most common failure mode as that is the way the towers are designed to react if wind loads are exceeded. However in neither case is there a "fall circle". Does anyone have information on this? Although the speaker was supposed to be an expert, I'd be interested in some independent information on this. Dee, N8UZE |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
|
PRB-1 and CC&R's
"Dee Flint" wrote ...
wrote ... Depends on the size of the lot. On a lot that's , say, 100 feet wide, you can't put up a tower more than 50 feet high and have its "fall circle" not go over the property line. Yet is that actually the correct way to calculate it? That assumes that the tower will break at the base and fall over from the base. This is not the common failure mode (or so I've been told). From one of the experts who was speaking to a city council meeting around here, the towers either twist like a corkscrew or bend over somewhere between the middle and top. The "corkscrew" is supposedly the most common failure mode as that is the way the towers are designed to react if wind loads are exceeded. However in neither case is there a "fall circle". Does anyone have information on this? Although the speaker was supposed to be an expert, I'd be interested in some independent information on this. The structure hight as a radius is the "worst-case" limit of damage. Insurance underwriters, country commissioners, et.al. likely don't want to expose themselves to the liability of setting a more risky limit. Our anecdotal history of typical tower failures may not seem as compelling to people with actuarial risk at stake. |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message ... "Dee Flint" wrote ... [snip] The structure hight as a radius is the "worst-case" limit of damage. Insurance underwriters, country commissioners, et.al. likely don't want to expose themselves to the liability of setting a more risky limit. Our anecdotal history of typical tower failures may not seem as compelling to people with actuarial risk at stake. Actually shouldn't there be some actuarial data on this? When it comes to damage, they'd be the most likely to have solid data. I noticed that no one addressing the council had bothered to get such data either way on this subject. At this point, it's just idle curiosity as our ordinance got changed to 75 feet (up from 50) and there was no "fall circle" type of language included. Dee, N8UZE |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
|
PRB-1 and CC&R's
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:11:47 EDT, "Dee Flint"
wrote: Does anyone have information on this? Although the speaker was supposed to be an expert, I'd be interested in some independent information on this. See my earlier post. The study was made by the engineering firm that designed the TV transmitting antennas on the Empire State Building in New York City - the name escapes me, though. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
"Phil Kane" wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:11:47 EDT, "Dee Flint" wrote: Does anyone have information on this? Although the speaker was supposed to be an expert, I'd be interested in some independent information on this. See my earlier post. The study was made by the engineering firm that designed the TV transmitting antennas on the Empire State Building in New York City - the name escapes me, though. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net Very interesting. If you should happen to remember who it was, please let us know. Or if you happen to think of more tidbits of information that would help a person find the info that would be great too. Dee, N8UZE |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
Phil Kane wrote in
: There was a study made of commercial tower failures several decades ago that showed this, and I've seen this first hand in some of the broadcast and comm towers affected by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in the San Francisco area. Whether the local building official is sharp enough to know this is an exercise left to the applicant....! The most likely failure scenarios are very true, but there is a credibility issue in these matters. We can speak of failure modes until we are blue in the face, but a simple worst case fall radius is easy for non- engineering types to understand. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
Phil Kane wrote:
As we all (should) know, towers rarely, if ever, fail in "stick fall" mode where the fall zone radius is equal to the tower height. The usual fall mode is a buckling collapse along the length of the tower resulting in a fall radius of about 10-15% of the tower height. My lot is 100' on the short side. Using that statistic, assuming I placed a tower in the center of my lot, I should be able to get a permit to erect a 333' (50' / 0.15) tower. Somehow, I don't think I have a snowball's chance in Hades of getting a permit for it. Oh well... it was a nice dream! hi 73, Bryan WA7PRC |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
Mike Coslo wrote:
Phil Kane wrote: There was a study made of commercial tower failures several decades ago that showed this, and I've seen this first hand in some of the broadcast and comm towers affected by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in the San Francisco area. Whether the local building official is sharp enough to know this is an exercise left to the applicant....! The most likely failure scenarios are very true, but there is a credibility issue in these matters. We can speak of failure modes until we are blue in the face, but a simple worst case fall radius is easy for non- engineering types to understand. And all the logic in the world won't help if the local building official insists on using the worst-case scenario or local laws demand it. Frankly, if I was the local building official, I would use the worst-case scenario. The primary responsibility of a building inspector is public safety, and invoking the worst-case scenario seems appropriate in this case. 73, Steve KB9X |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
"Steve Bonine" wrote in message ... Mike Coslo wrote: Phil Kane wrote: There was a study made of commercial tower failures several decades ago that showed this, and I've seen this first hand in some of the broadcast and comm towers affected by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in the San Francisco area. Whether the local building official is sharp enough to know this is an exercise left to the applicant....! The most likely failure scenarios are very true, but there is a credibility issue in these matters. We can speak of failure modes until we are blue in the face, but a simple worst case fall radius is easy for non- engineering types to understand. And all the logic in the world won't help if the local building official insists on using the worst-case scenario or local laws demand it. Frankly, if I was the local building official, I would use the worst-case scenario. The primary responsibility of a building inspector is public safety, and invoking the worst-case scenario seems appropriate in this case. 73, Steve KB9X No it isn't appropriate. There are telephone poles near my house that if they were to fall will destroy my house. My neighbors TREES could do the same. Yet most people do not see these as significant hazards. They are used to seeing them so do not think of them as hazards. I lived in one place where a tree next to my garage had a serious case of heart rot (hollow top to bottom). The tree was all but dead but the owner would NOT remove it because it was still "alive" (i.e. it had about a dozen leaves on one branch on one side of the tree). I could not find a way to force the owner to get rid of the tree. All I could do was to move my car out of the potential damage area when strong winds came up. As far as towers go, what is appropriate is that it be required to be erected per the manufacturer's design guidelines. Dee, N8UZE |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
"Dee Flint" wrote:
No it isn't appropriate. There are telephone poles near my house that if they were to fall will destroy my house. My neighbors TREES could do the same. Yet most people do not see these as significant hazards. They are used to seeing them so do not think of them as hazards. Rather than looking at this from the negative, let's look at it as a real business possibility. How about designing a series of towers that look externally like tree-trunks? Or, developing camoflauge that hams wrap on the outside of their towers which disguise them (the towers, not the hams) as big oak trees? Then, likewise, we can design a series of multi-element beam antennas which look like tree branches, complete with fake leaves! The possibilities (and income potential) is endless! 73 kh6hz |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
"Dee Flint" wrote in
: "Steve Bonine" wrote in message .. some snippage And all the logic in the world won't help if the local building official insists on using the worst-case scenario or local laws demand it. Frankly, if I was the local building official, I would use the worst-case scenario. The primary responsibility of a building inspector is public safety, and invoking the worst-case scenario seems appropriate in this case. 73, Steve KB9X No it isn't appropriate. There are telephone poles near my house that if they were to fall will destroy my house. My neighbors TREES could do the same. Yet most people do not see these as significant hazards. They are used to seeing them so do not think of them as hazards. Of course. People are used to things like Power poles and even think nothing of hurtling at each other in automobiles carrying liquids that are almost explosively flammable. In no way does that make either actually "safe". They are not quite so used to radio towers however. People have a fear of the unknown, especially in thies days of safe rooms in houses, and burglar alarms in gated communities. And in these days of safety taken to stupid extremes, and housing developments that won't allow you to have a clothesline in your back yard, I'm not about to go complaining about that one little restriction on a potential tower. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
On Mar 25, 7:03�pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote : "Steve Bonine" wrote in message .. And all the logic in the world won't help if the local building official insists on using the worst-case scenario or local laws demand it. Frankly, if I was the local building official, I would use the worst-case scenario. The primary responsibility of a building inspector is public safety, and invoking the worst-case scenario seems appropriate in this case. No it isn't appropriate. *There are telephone poles near my house that if they were to fall will destroy my house. *My neighbors TREES could do the same. *Yet most people do not see these as significant hazards. *They are used to seeing them so do not think of them as hazards. It's not just familiarity, though. Buildings and utilitity poles are usually subject to detailed codes regarding their installation and maintenance. Those codes are based on extensive experience about what works and what doesn't. A radio tower is more of a custom installation and requires special attention. I agree that using the worst-case fall-circle rule for a properly-installed radio tower is usually more restrictive than is needed. There are situations where the worst-case scenario applies, IMHO: Field Day and similar temporary installations. In those cases, where a tower, mast, pole or antenna may fall should always be considered. Putting a Field Day station at the base of a temporary tower may look idyllic but is not a safe practice. Of course. People are used to things like Power poles and even think nothing of hurtling at each other in automobiles carrying liquids that are almost explosively flammable. In no way does that make either actually "safe". There's safety and then there's the *perception* of safety. Driving/riding in autos is one of the most dangerous things most people do routinely, based on the death and injury rates. They are not quite so used to radio towers however. People have a fear of the unknown, especially in thies days of safe rooms in houses, and burglar alarms in gated communities. There's also the Gladys Kravitz effect. And in these days of safety taken to stupid extremes, and housing developments that won't allow you to have a clothesline in your back yard, I'm not about to go complaining about that one little restriction on a potential tower. IMHO, that's how restrictions get a foothold. First it's some little rule that doesn't really seem to make much difference, even though it's grounded more in fear than in good engineering. For example, as Dee points out, the utility poles could fall over and cause extensive damage, but they're not restricted the way towers are. Then there's a little expansion of the rule. Maybe it's the fall circle plus ten percent. Or twenty five percent. A little here, a little there, and pretty soon you need a property a couple of hundred feet in every direction to put up a fifty foot tower. This may sound absurd, but I'm old enough to remember a time when, if someone suggested a no-antennas restriction on houses, they'd have been laughed at because practically everyone wanted to watch TV, and to do that required a decent outdoor antenna. Then cable came along and now they're SOP. --- btw, even the professionals mess up at times: http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=500#more-500 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/.../citicorp.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup_Center 73 de Jim, N2EY |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
|
PRB-1 and CC&R's
On Mar 26, 9:14�pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote roups.com: On Mar 25, 7:03?pm, Mike Coslo wrote: I agree that using the worst-case fall-circle rule for a properly-installed radio tower is usually more restrictive than is needed. There are situations where the worst-case scenario applies, IMHO: Field Day and similar temporary installations. In those cases, where a tower, mast, pole or antenna may fall should always be considered. Putting a Field Day station at the base of a temporary tower may look idyllic but is not a safe practice. Very true. All too common, as well. Of course. People are used to things like Power poles and even think nothing of hurtling at each other in automobiles carrying liquids that are almost explosively flammable. In no way does that make either actually "safe". There's safety and then there's the *perception* of safety. Driving/riding in autos is one of the most dangerous things most people do routinely, based on the death and injury rates. Surely. I can't explain the contradictions, but I suppose that those who practice those contradictions don't give it a second thought. People tend to be more afraid of the unknown. Cars are known. Another one along the same lines is that people fear for their health from a 60 Hz HV line several hundred feet from their house, but doin't have a problem with sticking their head in the near field of a cell phone and talking for hours a day like that. I think a better example is to compare apples to apples: Some people fear the effects of power-line fields, but not the fields from their house wiring and appliances - even though the latter may be much stronger because they're so much closer. Some people fear the effects of being near cellphone towers, yet not the effects of using a cellphone whose fields are stronger because they're closer. Opposition to cell towers has caused the cellphone folks to install lots of small cells rather than a few big ones, and to use disguise antennas - including some that look like trees. Both are cases of ignorance of such basics as the inverse square law. This is not to say that RF and power-line fields have no health effects at all, just that the real risk factors are often misunderstood. *They are not quite so used to radio towers however. People have a fear of the unknown, especially in thies days of safe rooms in houses, and burglar alarms in gated communities. There's also the Gladys Kravitz effect. Hehe, very true. ABNER! *And in these days of safety taken to stupid extremes, and housing developments that won't allow you to have a clothesline in your back yard, I'm not about to go complaining about that one little restriction on a potential tower. IMHO, that's how restrictions get a foothold. First it's some little rule that doesn't really seem to make much difference, even though it's grounded more in fear than in good engineering. For example, as Dee points out, the utility poles could fall over and cause extensive damage, but they're not restricted the way towers are. * * * * They not only can, but they do! We see that one all the time. SO it's familiar.... Then there's a little expansion of the rule. Maybe it's the fall circle plus ten percent. Or twenty five percent. A little here, a little there, and pretty soon you need a property a couple of hundred feet in every direction to put up a fifty foot tower. * * * * That's a mighty slippery slope there Jim! 8^) If it happens, it must be possible. * * * * If I go into a zoning meeting trying to get a waiver to the "restriction" in my neighborhood so that I could put up a tower larger than allowed, I wouldn't get too far with terms such as "very unlikely" and typical failure mode" They are going to "worst case" me in a big way. Tell it to Citicorp. And I'm not so sure that if I was a zoning officer that I wouldn't do the same. The question I would ask: Is it physically impossible for the tower would fall straight over at the base? Solution: Windmill tower. If you can get expert evidence that it is impossible, I might consider it, if not, I will advise you to be glad that you are living in a modern village development that allows towers, but you will have to be satisfied with a tower within the prescribed limits. What if you had a contractor set a utility pole for use as a tower? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:28:07 EDT, Mike Coslo
wrote: The most likely failure scenarios are very true, but there is a credibility issue in these matters. We can speak of failure modes until we are blue in the face, but a simple worst case fall radius is easy for non- engineering types to understand. Yeah but... The building official is SUPPOSED to be an engineering type! -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:28:27 EDT, "Bryan"
wrote: My lot is 100' on the short side. Using that statistic, assuming I placed a tower in the center of my lot, I should be able to get a permit to erect a 333' (50' / 0.15) tower. Somehow, I don't think I have a snowball's chance in Hades of getting a permit for it. Oh well... it was a nice dream! hi Consider that if it's a guyed tower the top guy wires would have to extend out a good deal more than 50 feet from the base. Knowing what it costs to buy and erect and maintain a 333 ft tower -- common for some broadcast stations - do you have a snowball's chance in Hades to afford it? If so, can I be one of your buddies? g -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:42:17 EDT, "KH6HZ" wrote:
How about designing a series of towers that look externally like tree-trunks? Or, developing camoflauge that hams wrap on the outside of their towers which disguise them (the towers, not the hams) as big oak trees? Then, likewise, we can design a series of multi-element beam antennas which look like tree branches, complete with fake leaves! Having dealt with the (in)efficiency of such cell-site "stealth" antennas, I wouldn't touch them for ham radio purposes with a ten foot pole! -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
|
PRB-1 and CC&R's
Phil Kane wrote:
Bryan wrote: My lot is 100' on the short side. Using that statistic, assuming I placed a tower in the center of my lot, I should be able to get a permit to erect a 333' (50' / 0.15) tower. Somehow, I don't think I have a snowball's chance in Hades of getting a permit for it. Oh well... it was a nice dream! hi Consider that if it's a guyed tower the top guy wires would have to extend out a good deal more than 50 feet from the base. Knowing what it costs to buy and erect and maintain a 333 ft tower -- common for some broadcast stations - do you have a snowball's chance in Hades to afford it? If so, can I be one of your buddies? g -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net Touché... one wisecrack deserves another! ;^) 73, Bryan WA7PRC |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
Phil Kane wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:28:07 EDT, Mike Coslo wrote: The most likely failure scenarios are very true, but there is a credibility issue in these matters. We can speak of failure modes until we are blue in the face, but a simple worst case fall radius is easy for non- engineering types to understand. Yeah but... The building official is SUPPOSED to be an engineering type! Supposed to be are the keywords I think, Phil. We always hope the officials have their jobs through competence. I think it's also important to get along with the neighbors, so I would want to convince them of likely safety too. In our case, our one set of neighbors would probably understand, but the others might be a hard sell. All very nice folks, but the one couple has a technical background. We live in an age where a lot of people get their physics education from Bugs Bunny and Road Runner cartoons. It takes a lot to educate them in how things actually work - especially when their misconceptions are so much more entertaining! ;^) - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
"Phil Kane" wrote in message
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:43:55 EDT, wrote: People tend to be more afraid of the unknown. Cars are known. If I put up a 70 foot tower (the maximum level below which local authorities cannot regulate in Oregon) it and I will certainly become known to my neighbors!! 70ft and they can't regulate..?! Wow, things are certainly different your side of the water..! Here in the UK it varies depending on where in the country you are, but where I live we need planning permission from the local authority for anything that raises its head above roof level..! Although there is retrospective permission for anything that has been in place for some time (I believe 5 years but I'm not certain) without complaints. Certainly I've never had any issues about my small VHF/UHF colinear at around 25ft..! 73 Ivor G6URP |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
Phil Kane wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:42:17 EDT, "KH6HZ" wrote: How about designing a series of towers that look externally like tree-trunks? Or, developing camoflauge that hams wrap on the outside of their towers which disguise them (the towers, not the hams) as big oak trees? Then, likewise, we can design a series of multi-element beam antennas which look like tree branches, complete with fake leaves! Having dealt with the (in)efficiency of such cell-site "stealth" antennas, I wouldn't touch them for ham radio purposes with a ten foot pole! There's a cellular tower in Bainbridge, NY, I think, visible from along I88 which was objected to until some wise guy (who it was or on which side of the equation was, I don't know) suggested constructing the tower so that it looked like a fir tree. Ok, you say, that's a reasonable compromise -- except they constructed it as a *huge* "pine tree" -- overtowering (if you'll pardon the pun) every other pine tree for a hundred miles around. I don't think they're likely to do that again! Joe, W2RBA |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
In article ,
Phil Kane wrote: Yeah but... The building official is SUPPOSED to be an engineering type! -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane I'll give you an example of how it works in the REAL World..... We, (Local Residents) wanted to have the Borough (County) build a small bridge across a 30 ft wide creek, so that we could connect two seperate Road Systems, locally. There was a bridge in this location, built by the Army Corps of Engineers in WWII, that had decayed, and collapsed 30 years ago, but the abuttments were still in good shape. The Required Permits to install the new Bridge were all in place, EXCEPT for the Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game's Habitat Division, which needed to pass on the permit, because the creek was a Salmon Spawning System. Now you have to undestand that this is a nothing project, ($60KUS) on a nothing creek, (There are literally thousands of similar Creeks in our neighborhood - Neighborhood = 100 Square Miles) in the middle of NoWhere, Alaska. Habitat Division was staffed by "Greenie" Fish Biologists with absolutly NO Knowledge of Civil Engineer, and little pracatical experience outside the Degreed University Program they came from. It took us Three (3) Years of "Blood, Sweat, and Tears" to get the last signoff, and it finally took the President of the Alaska Senate, to hold up the Budget for ADF&G in Committee, untill they were within 24 Hours of having to send everyone home, because they couldn't Pay them. The first Official Act of the, then New Governer, Frank Merkowski, 15 minutes after he was sworn in, was to eliminate the ADF&G Habitat Division, fire ALL the Biologists, and transfer the Permitting to the Depatment of Natural Resources. Two weeks later there was an Ad in the Help Wanted of all the Alaskan Papers looking for Civil Engineers with PE Stamps, and Fish Habitat Experience, to work for Alaska's DNR. They hired three, in short order, and the backlog of 8 years of Permit Applications (500+) were dealt with in then next 9 months. During the previous 8 Years only 12 permits were issued. Bruce in alaska -- add a 2 before @ |
PRB-1 and CC&R's
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:15:40 EDT, "Ivor Jones"
wrote: If I put up a 70 foot tower (the maximum level below which local authorities cannot regulate in Oregon) it and I will certainly become known to my neighbors!! 70ft and they can't regulate..?! Wow, things are certainly different your side of the water..! Here in the UK it varies depending on where in the country you are, As it does here. The Federal requirement is "reasonable accommodation by the least restrictive means" for heights suitable to conduct the desired communication. In addition to the Federal standard, the various states have also enacted nearly-identical statutes (local authorities and courts are much more comfortable dealing with state or local requirements as compared to the exact same thing imposed by the "Great White Father in Washington"! g Oregon is only one of two (I believe) states whose statutes specify a height up to which "reasonable accommodation" is presumed by operation of law. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane ARRL Volunteer Counsel email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:09 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com