MaryA1
(Arizona)
Posts:2248
 |
| 06/24/2008 6:40 AM |
|
| Wow! Rather innovative. But, no interference with reception? What type of paint did he use? |
|
|
|
|
MicheleD
(Kentucky)
Posts:1710
|
| 06/24/2008 9:35 AM |
|
Absolutely no interference with reception.
He used a variety of spray paints.
I didn't really pay attention.
He was working on it in what we here lovingly refer to as "Dexter's Laboratory."
One day he went downstairs with a few bags full of spray paints and his dish, and a few days later he was outside on a ladder re-installing it!
I'll ask him and see what he used.
|
|
|
|
|
BridgetteC
(Michigan)
Posts:4
|
| 06/25/2008 8:09 AM |
|
| The CHV By-Laws are very clear on placement and size of dishes, all of which must be approved by the Architectural firm put in place by the developer. If your current By-laws do not cover issues which are becoming a problem to the community they can be put to a vote. You will have to check the current by-laws as to the percentage of which it takes to change/add to the by-laws |
|
|
|
|
MaryA1
(Arizona)
Posts:2248
|
| 06/25/2008 8:58 AM |
|
Posted By BridgetteC on 06/25/2008 8:09 AM
The CHV By-Laws are very clear on placement and size of dishes, all of which must be approved by the Architectural firm put in place by the developer. If your current By-laws do not cover issues which are becoming a problem to the community they can be put to a vote. You will have to check the current by-laws as to the percentage of which it takes to change/add to the by-laws
Bridgette,
Since you're jumping in on a thread that's been going on for awhile, I suggest you start at the beginning. Make note of the FCC website posted and take a look at the FCC ruling regarding satellite dishes. It could be your assn is in violation! Although the assn can place restrictions on placement, to do so may delay the installation which is in direct violation of the FCC ruling. This is a Fed. law which must be upheld by the HOA regardless of what the bylaws say! |
|
|
|
|
SkuddleM
(Colorado)
Posts:21
|
| 06/26/2008 3:03 PM |
|
Posted By BruceF1 on 06/19/2008 10:57 AM
In my opinion, I think the more left unsaid, the better. Best not to plant seeds in people's minds.
I would recommend just saying something like "the preferred location is on the rear or side of the house where it cannot be seen from the front."
Bruce1,
1. Amen to that!
2. I agree, but unfortunately, the preferred location to many homeowners is the highest location obtainable for the basic installation price, regardless of where on the property that might be, and covenants be damned. |
|
|
|
|
GlenL
(Ohio)
Posts:1377
|
| 06/26/2008 3:24 PM |
|
| Not covenants be damned - the covenant is invalid and therefore unenforceable except at great expense to the HOA to PROVE it would not have cost more, delayed installation and resulted in just as good of a picture if it were placed where the HOA wanted it. This is for single family detached; condos, townhomes and apartments can have stricter rules. |
|
|
|
|
BruceF1
(Connecticut)
Posts:590
|
| 06/27/2008 5:03 AM |
|
"I agree, but unfortunately, the preferred location to many homeowners is the highest location obtainable for the basic installation price, regardless of where on the property that might be, and covenants be damned."
The words "for the basic installation price" imply to me that it would cost more to install the antenna somewhere else. As Glen said, that makes a covenent requiring the installation to be in a specific location unenforceable. |
|
|
|
|
SkuddleM
(Colorado)
Posts:21
|
| 06/27/2008 7:11 AM |
|
Basic installation price: Not having a dish, I don't know what the installation cost would be, and I can only guess that a service call to move a dish would start at about $79 to $100.
Specific location: That's right. But our covenant does not prescribe where antennas must be located, rather where they may NOT be located, namely,
1) not higher than the highest part of the building (wonder if that includes the top of swamp coolers and/or the top of vent pipes, some of which stick up ridiculously high), and,
2) not in front of the fence line.
I think in my case it is a moot point, because it has been 18 months since the offending installations were identified by the BOD. Although "friendly reminders" have been sent out (and with some success), no firm action has been taken for those who continue to break the covenant.
As an aside, I've seen several situations wherein antennas are practically invisible, and certainly not intrusive in any way, but are nevertheless not located in compliance with the CCRs. And many dishes are in compliance but still stand out sharply against the skyline.
Oh well, it keeps life interesting. |
|
|
|
|
MaryA1
(Arizona)
Posts:2248
|
| 06/27/2008 7:18 AM |
|
Skuddle,
What Glen and Bruce were trying to tell you is that there is an FCC ruling (as in Fed. law!) that the HOA must abide by. The HOA cannot impose a restriction that would cause a delay in installation or increase the cost of the installation. The burden of proof in on the HOA.
The FCC ruling can be read and/or downloaded from this website:
www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html
I would suggest making this info available to your board members. It appears they may need to amend their rule on satellite dish antennas. |
|
|
|
|
BruceF1
(Connecticut)
Posts:590
|
| 06/27/2008 8:36 AM |
|
Posted By SkuddleM on 06/27/2008 7:11 AM
Specific location: That's right. But our covenant does not prescribe where antennas must be located, rather where they may NOT be located, namely,
1) not higher than the highest part of the building (wonder if that includes the top of swamp coolers and/or the top of vent pipes, some of which stick up ridiculously high), and,
2) not in front of the fence line.
These are all unenforceable.
You can't specify where antennas CANNOT be located. You can ask, but you can't force compliance.
As to #1, FEDERAL LAW says dishes can be mounted on a mast attached to the roof as long as the total height (mast + antenna) does not exceed 12 feet from the highest point on the roof itself.
#2 is unenforceable if the area in front of the fence line is for the exclusive use of the homeowner or under the control of the homeowner.
I continue to be amazed that there are still several HOA board members out there that have never even heard of the otard rules. They've been around long enough.
One other thing I might add. Trying to enforce these covenants can be costly to the association (and thus, to the homeowners). You will most likely have to engage an attorney (at a fee), assuming one will even agree to take the case. D&O insurance won't cover it because that's in case the BOD gets sued, not the other way around. As for the homeowner, all that has to be done is file a complaint with the FCC and request a hearing. That costs the homeowner nothing. The burden of proof that the covenant should be enforced is then upon the HOA. |
|
|
|
|
MaryA1
(Arizona)
Posts:2248
|
| 06/27/2008 8:43 AM |
|
Skuddle,
I might add, in answer to your remark that "no firm action has been taken aganist those who continue to break the covenant". Those members most likely know the FCC ruling. I'm sure all companies who install the antennas know what the FCC ruling is and advise their customers that they have a right to place the antenna at whatever location will give them the best reception. I'm sure they are quick to point this out to any customer who lives in an HOA. The homeowner has the upper hand on this one. A complaint filed with the FCC will require the HOA to show the burden of proof. |
|
|
|
|
BradP
(Kansas)
Posts:1742
|
| 06/27/2008 8:48 AM |
|
Posted By MaryA1 on 06/27/2008 8:43 AM
Skuddle,
I might add, in answer to your remark that "no firm action has been taken aganist those who continue to break the covenant". Those members most likely know the FCC ruling. I'm sure all companies who install the antennas know what the FCC ruling is and advise their customers that they have a right to place the antenna at whatever location will give them the best reception. I'm sure they are quick to point this out to any customer who lives in an HOA. The homeowner has the upper hand on this one. A complaint filed with the FCC will require the HOA to show the burden of proof.
I highly doubt most members know the covenant is invalid because I would bet most don't even know one exists. The company installing it knows of the ruling but I also highly doubt they advise the clients of that. Instead they suggest the spot for maximum efficiency and clients seeing that other homeowners have done it go ahead and do it.
|
|
|
|
|
MaryA1
(Arizona)
Posts:2248
|
| 06/27/2008 8:53 AM |
|
Brad,
Whatever! Just an assumption on my part -- same for you, right? :-)
I know that whenever I've had work done on my home, the contractor is always aware of the requirement for approval from the A/C. And, this is what I base my assumption on. |
|
|
|
|
BradP
(Kansas)
Posts:1742
|
| 06/27/2008 8:56 AM |
|
| I think your state is a little more HOA progressive than mine...that has never been something a contractor has discussed with me. |
|
|
|
|
SkuddleM
(Colorado)
Posts:21
|
| 06/29/2008 6:24 PM |
|
| Is there a way I can save/download this entire thread (or any thread in this forum, for that matter) for future use? |
|
|
|
|
MicheleD
(Kentucky)
Posts:1710
|
| 06/29/2008 7:08 PM |
|
I guess you could copy and paste it into a text document in whatever word processing software you use.
Mary,
I asked my husband about the paint he used to make the brick pattern on our satellite dish.
He said basically any FLAT spray paint will work, but it has to be FLAT, glossy will NOT work well.
|
|
|
|
|
MaryA1
(Arizona)
Posts:2248
|
| 06/30/2008 11:05 AM |
|
Michele,
Thx! I don't even have a dish antenna; but I was curious. I thought the brick pattern was kinda cute! |
|
|
|
|