Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: This is old but  (Read 2278 times)
WB2KSP
Member

Posts: 786




Ignore
« on: September 25, 2018, 10:33:53 AM »


 It does define reasonable accommodation as it relates to Ham radio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qhQYZ2cUvw
Logged
K7JQ
Member

Posts: 1282




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: September 25, 2018, 11:48:43 AM »


 It does define reasonable accommodation as it relates to Ham radio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qhQYZ2cUvw

IMO, its' location in a what appears to be a sparsely populated canyon, without any apparent close-in eyesore or neighborly harm, could be construed as "reasonable" for that location.

In deference to the first YouTube video you showed in a previous post. A huge 4-element SteppIR on a high tower in a close-in upscale neighborhood would be the exact opposite of "reasonable accommodation". Apparently his CC&R's (or lack thereof) lets him get away with that monstrosity. I'm all for "reasonable accommodation", but that's ridiculous. Again, in my opinion Wink.
Logged
WB2KSP
Member

Posts: 786




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: September 25, 2018, 12:46:07 PM »


 It does define reasonable accommodation as it relates to Ham radio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qhQYZ2cUvw

IMO, its' location in a what appears to be a sparsely populated canyon, without any apparent close-in eyesore or neighborly harm, could be construed as "reasonable" for that location.

In deference to the first YouTube video you showed in a previous post. A huge 4-element SteppIR on a high tower in a close-in upscale neighborhood would be the exact opposite of "reasonable accommodation". Apparently his CC&R's (or lack thereof) lets him get away with that monstrosity. I'm all for "reasonable accommodation", but that's ridiculous. Again, in my opinion Wink.

What I took from this last video is that it's the job of the township to accommodate the ham and not the other way around. I don't believe that most hams are looking to erect a 100 foot tower and a large SteppIR on a postage sized lot. However a spider beam on the roof and a back yard vertical which together would cover most bands from 80-6 meter is not out of bounds. If the look of any external antenna is disturbing then it's my belief that one should not live in a community with other people. At what point does my living my life start constituting an eyesore. Maybe the person across the street (or elsewhere in the neighborhood) doesn't like the type of landscaping I chose. Should I be forced to adhere to their sense of style? What if I drive a car which they don't like. Should I be forced to trade mine in to accommodate them? Ridiculous examples? It's my belief that focusing on a structure on the roof of your neighbors home or in their backyard (which can barely be seen) is equally ridiculous. Antennas for whatever reason are seen as eyesores. I don't know how this issue came about but a well maintained antennas system is no more an eyesore then a fireplace chimney or a outdoor pool which can attract bugs and can have its water splashed on my property. If I were to construct a dipole on my property no one is harmed what would be the problem and yet in many communities it's illegal. That leads me to believe that some of the anti antenna people could care less about the antenna and more about the power they hold over other people.
Logged
W3DBB
Member

Posts: 124




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: September 26, 2018, 05:07:49 AM »

The perception of antennas as a public nuisance began with CBers running illegal power and getting into people's TV's & stereos. The start of a negative association: CB antennas=RFI and are therefore trouble that must be avoided and regulated or banned if possible.

Formerly people were conditioned to see outside TV antennas in urban areas and rural areas not served with cable. Ubiquitous, like power poles. Convenience and technology made outside TV antennas obsolete to most people. People became less used to seeing outside antennas.

The negative connotations of antennas grew as hilltop transmitter sites filled with towers and proliferated. Not everyone wants to live on or near one of these sites.

Finally banks & municipalities got into the act, the idea being to maximize marketability of new dwellings and the resulting tax revenue to government. With the least amount of financial outlay on their part, of course.

It's not a good idea to erect a tower that can fall on neighbor's property. Depending on height and positioning there should be a minimum lot dimension to ensure this does not happen. Same goes for a mast or any non-permanent support.  A 'porcupine' house on a small lot is an eyesore to many if not most. Common sense should be the rule...

But in a HOA regulated community all that goes out the window. They have the ironclad, resistance is futile. I like the ARRL but saw their pursuit of the Parity Act as mainly a fundraiser. But at what cost to them? And when does the Parity become the rarity?

Banks, real estate developers, local municipalities..., in a nation of 330 million people and 3/4 of a million radio amateurs, our institutions are the ones with real clout as has been demonstrated to date.

I see no sign of that changing.



Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 5081




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: September 26, 2018, 07:03:38 AM »

In deference to the first YouTube video you showed in a previous post. A huge 4-element SteppIR on a high tower in a close-in upscale neighborhood would be the exact opposite of "reasonable accommodation". Apparently his CC&R's (or lack thereof) lets him get away with that monstrosity. I'm all for "reasonable accommodation", but that's ridiculous. Again, in my opinion Wink.

That video is old....the ham moved away years ago, and the tower and beam are gone. Google Earth verifies.

Part of the problem with antenna restrictions today is......residential architecture. Many newer developments are done in such a way that there are no trees, no fences and no utility poles, and the houses are close together. The result is that anything anyone does is visible all over the neighborhood, and it sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb.
Logged
WB2KSP
Member

Posts: 786




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: September 26, 2018, 08:59:58 AM »

In deference to the first YouTube video you showed in a previous post. A huge 4-element SteppIR on a high tower in a close-in upscale neighborhood would be the exact opposite of "reasonable accommodation". Apparently his CC&R's (or lack thereof) lets him get away with that monstrosity. I'm all for "reasonable accommodation", but that's ridiculous. Again, in my opinion Wink.

That video is old....the ham moved away years ago, and the tower and beam are gone. Google Earth verifies.

Part of the problem with antenna restrictions today is......residential architecture. Many newer developments are done in such a way that there are no trees, no fences and no utility poles, and the houses are close together. The result is that anything anyone does is visible all over the neighborhood, and it sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb.

That's fine but in developments where a home sits on half an acre or more and the developers have kept the natural landscape there is no reason that the antennas I described above couldn't be mounted. In my opinion it's less of a problem with the HOA and more of a problem with the covenants.
Logged
W9FIB
Member

Posts: 2507




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: September 26, 2018, 07:16:54 PM »

That's fine but in developments where a home sits on half an acre or more and the developers have kept the natural landscape there is no reason that the antennas I described above couldn't be mounted. In my opinion it's less of a problem with the HOA and more of a problem with the covenants.

Just need to find the right property instead of wishing the wrong property were right.
Logged

73, Stan
Wisdom is knowledge you gain after you know it all.
WA7PRC
Member

Posts: 2325


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #7 on: September 26, 2018, 08:04:01 PM »

That's fine but in developments where a home sits on half an acre or more and the developers have kept the natural landscape there is no reason that the antennas I described above couldn't be mounted. In my opinion it's less of a problem with the HOA and more of a problem with the covenants.

Just need to find the right property instead of wishing the wrong property were right.
Yep. Nationally, approximately 25% of properties are in a HOA. It follows then, approximately 75% aren't.
Logged
W3DBB
Member

Posts: 124




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2018, 06:37:43 AM »

That's fine but in developments where a home sits on half an acre or more and the developers have kept the natural landscape there is no reason that the antennas I described above couldn't be mounted. In my opinion it's less of a problem with the HOA and more of a problem with the covenants.
I've been living for over 20 years with CCRs but there is no HOA to enforce them. The CCRs were written back in the 1960's when the subdivision began. It was an old farm. Put succinctly the CCRs prohibit sheds, horses, and livestock.  There are sheds all over this neighborhood, including 2 at my place that relate to an inground swimming pool. My property is 0.7 acres. I have or had wire antennas, ground-mounted mast antennas, and eave-mounted mast antennas. Never owned a tower or a tri-bander.

I haven't experienced any problems arising from the existence of CCRs, nor am I aware of any in the subdivision. Due to the lack of a homeowner's association it falls on the aggrieved party to take the owner of the offending appurtenance to court to get it removed. To date this has not happened.

In certain pockets of the nation individuals are highly litigious. That is not really the case here. If a plurality of the homeowners agreed they could start an HOA and start forcing everyone to remove their sheds. This subdivision was started 55 years ago. It has seen 3 different developers over the decades. Currently there are none. There are still undeveloped lots available. I don't expect there will be a HOA here.

Although we still own the house (it is currently for sale), the wife & I relocated about 1/4 mile to the east to a 6 acre property with no CCRs. We didn't relocate due to CCRs governing our former home, we relocated because even in our approaching-retirement age condition we felt for variety reasons I won't go into here we could not pass up the deal. And so it goes...



Logged
WB2KSP
Member

Posts: 786




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2018, 08:03:07 AM »

That's fine but in developments where a home sits on half an acre or more and the developers have kept the natural landscape there is no reason that the antennas I described above couldn't be mounted. In my opinion it's less of a problem with the HOA and more of a problem with the covenants.
I've been living for over 20 years with CCRs but there is no HOA to enforce them. The CCRs were written back in the 1960's when the subdivision began. It was an old farm. Put succinctly the CCRs prohibit sheds, horses, and livestock.  There are sheds all over this neighborhood, including 2 at my place that relate to an inground swimming pool. My property is 0.7 acres. I have or had wire antennas, ground-mounted mast antennas, and eave-mounted mast antennas. Never owned a tower or a tri-bander.

I haven't experienced any problems arising from the existence of CCRs, nor am I aware of any in the subdivision. Due to the lack of a homeowner's association it falls on the aggrieved party to take the owner of the offending appurtenance to court to get it removed. To date this has not happened.

In certain pockets of the nation individuals are highly litigious. That is not really the case here. If a plurality of the homeowners agreed they could start an HOA and start forcing everyone to remove their sheds. This subdivision was started 55 years ago. It has seen 3 different developers over the decades. Currently there are none. There are still undeveloped lots available. I don't expect there will be a HOA here.

Although we still own the house (it is currently for sale), the wife & I relocated about 1/4 mile to the east to a 6 acre property with no CCRs. We didn't relocate due to CCRs governing our former home, we relocated because even in our approaching-retirement age condition we felt for variety reasons I won't go into here we could not pass up the deal. And so it goes...





I live on a piece of property which is .41 acres. On this property I have two wire antennas which cover 80-6 meters. My home was built in 1985 and there are no antenna restrictions on the land (of course constructing a tower or roof mounting a beam would require C/O from the town). There is no HOA in my neighborhood. When I retire in a few years I'd like to relocate but every neighborhood that I have looked at has HOA's and covenants which disallow the construction of ANY external ham antenna. I don't wish to move to an older home or into the country so that I can use my ham license which I tested for and was granted many years ago. I'm happy to read that you found a home to fit your needs. Too many are like me, looking for a newer structure where we can enjoy our hobby as we see fit.
Logged
AC2RY
Member

Posts: 740




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: September 27, 2018, 01:06:13 PM »

That's fine but in developments where a home sits on half an acre or more and the developers have kept the natural landscape there is no reason that the antennas I described above couldn't be mounted. In my opinion it's less of a problem with the HOA and more of a problem with the covenants.
I've been living for over 20 years with CCRs but there is no HOA to enforce them. The CCRs were written back in the 1960's when the subdivision began. It was an old farm. Put succinctly the CCRs prohibit sheds, horses, and livestock.  There are sheds all over this neighborhood, including 2 at my place that relate to an inground swimming pool. My property is 0.7 acres. I have or had wire antennas, ground-mounted mast antennas, and eave-mounted mast antennas. Never owned a tower or a tri-bander.

I haven't experienced any problems arising from the existence of CCRs, nor am I aware of any in the subdivision. Due to the lack of a homeowner's association it falls on the aggrieved party to take the owner of the offending appurtenance to court to get it removed. To date this has not happened.

In certain pockets of the nation individuals are highly litigious. That is not really the case here. If a plurality of the homeowners agreed they could start an HOA and start forcing everyone to remove their sheds. This subdivision was started 55 years ago. It has seen 3 different developers over the decades. Currently there are none. There are still undeveloped lots available. I don't expect there will be a HOA here.

Although we still own the house (it is currently for sale), the wife & I relocated about 1/4 mile to the east to a 6 acre property with no CCRs. We didn't relocate due to CCRs governing our former home, we relocated because even in our approaching-retirement age condition we felt for variety reasons I won't go into here we could not pass up the deal. And so it goes...





You are living in really rural area (20 miles from State College and 50 from Harrisburg). Most people in major metro areas (where most good jobs are) have different experience.
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 5081




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: September 27, 2018, 01:15:12 PM »

I haven't experienced any problems arising from the existence of CCRs, nor am I aware of any in the subdivision. Due to the lack of a homeowner's association it falls on the aggrieved party to take the owner of the offending appurtenance to court to get it removed.

IANAL, but, there may be more involved.

Deed covenants and restrictions often don't need an HOA nor a neighbor to enforce them. Here's why:

Suppose a deed restriction prohibits towers. Suppose the municipality, county, etc., requires a building permit for a tower. If the entity that gives out building permits figures out that there is a no-towers deed restriction, they can deny the building permit, which effectively denies the tower - with no HOA and no complaining neighbor.

Of course wire antennas and verticals may be a different thing - but if a wire antenna needs a supporting mast, or a vertical is tall enough, it may run afoul of the same problems.

73 de Jim, N2EY
« Last Edit: September 27, 2018, 01:18:57 PM by N2EY » Logged
WB2KSP
Member

Posts: 786




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: September 27, 2018, 03:28:10 PM »

I haven't experienced any problems arising from the existence of CCRs, nor am I aware of any in the subdivision. Due to the lack of a homeowner's association it falls on the aggrieved party to take the owner of the offending appurtenance to court to get it removed.

IANAL, but, there may be more involved.

Deed covenants and restrictions often don't need an HOA nor a neighbor to enforce them. Here's why:

Suppose a deed restriction prohibits towers. Suppose the municipality, county, etc., requires a building permit for a tower. If the entity that gives out building permits figures out that there is a no-towers deed restriction, they can deny the building permit, which effectively denies the tower - with no HOA and no complaining neighbor.

Of course wire antennas and verticals may be a different thing - but if a wire antenna needs a supporting mast, or a vertical is tall enough, it may run afoul of the same problems.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Which is why I wrote what I did. My point being that in many cases the HOA is just enforcing the covenant. They really have no choice in the matter. If the no antenna covenants went away I am not suggesting that every HOA community would allow antennas but at least there would be some possibilities where very few exist today. My parents community in Florida is very nice and I've even operated from there many years ago using a low mounted dipole and no one said a word. It was a temporary setup. If I had told the HOA about my operations they wouldn't have allowed it due to the preexisting land covenants. Their community has certain rules but they aren't over the top. I've visited many times and parked my rental car in their driveway over night and no one complained. Yet, they simply can not allow any ham antennas due to the covenants. If they disappeared I think that would resolve many of the current problems.
Logged
K1VSK
Member

Posts: 529




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: September 28, 2018, 04:19:32 PM »

. When I retire in a few years I'd like to relocate but every neighborhood that I have looked at has HOA's and covenants which disallow the construction of ANY external ham antenna. I don't wish to move to an older home or into the country so that I can use my ham license which I tested for and was granted many years ago. I'm happy to read that you found a home to fit your needs. Too many are like me, looking for a newer structure where we can enjoy our hobby as we see fit.
I thought we already dismissed that argument that there are no homes (in the Sarasota areas which is where you stated you were looking) as a false claim. It's only been a few weeks since you requested and received my list of approx. a dozen areas of Sarasota which 1. Fit you stated requirements, and 2. Have no antenna limitations.

If a ham can't find a residence which allows antennas, he is either not looking very diligently or prefers to perpetuate frivolous myths.
Logged
KG7LFJ
Member

Posts: 70




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: September 28, 2018, 10:18:07 PM »

Here's my story.   I bought into an HOA controlled neighborhood in 1999.   One board member stored a boat in her drive way.  That is a violation of the CC&R's.   

Living in a CC&R controlled area wasn't a consideration when I bought the home.  I wanted the home and at first I was happy that there were 'rules' 

At one point I had 12-70 ft firs in my yard. One fell on the house during a huge wind storm so I had them all taken out. (I wish I had left at least 2 now). 

After I got my ham tickets a few years ago,  I played with dipoles on 10 and 20 meters.  I like to experiment with different home brew antennas.  I bought an antenna anaylizer for that purpose.

So, with the old HR 1301 being talked about a few years ago, I decided to do the proper thing and submit a request to the board to put up a modest vertical. 

Their first response was that if I asked my neighbors how they felt and if no one objected, then they wouldn't care. 

SO, I got all my neighbors approval and turned that info into the board. 

Then the board decided that, no they cant allow my request. However, they did say that if and when HR 1301 were to pass, then they would have no issue with my request. 

I have read the CC&R's from front to back,  and I see violations every day. i.e  foot long grass in lawns, boats in driveways, etc.  Yet this board doesn't seem to want to upset anyone and address the violations. 

Not being able to have a decent antenna has but a huge dent in my wanting to get on the air. 

I have a stand of smaller trees in one corner of my lot and it would probably be tall enough to hide a vertical. Maybe I'll do it and see what happens...LOL.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!