New Board requesting permission for satellite dishes

Contrary to Fed'l laws our new board has decided to ask our homeowners (who have lived here from 2004 on) to complete requests for their satellite dishes. FCC states it is illegal since 1997 to do this. They dio not care they want the forms completed even though they will allow the dishes.
our bylaws state: PAGE 18 OF 35 SECTION " No ANTENNAE"..... THE RULING STATES... NO RADIO TOWERS, SATELLITE TOWERS TELEVISION TOWERS CAN BE ERECTED ON THE (CASCADES ) PROPERTY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE DECLARANT (WHICH WAS our builder).

I believe this means those huge towers only not individual dishes on private homes. Federal laws out rank HOA by-laws . But at the last meeting, the new president insisted 50 h/o fill out forms even if they bought the home with a dish on it.

Their reasoning is a lawyer said our Board cannot enforce one by -law and not another and no one can get a fine unles everyone follows the rules.
Any opinions?

To accommodate the smaller dishes we changed our Architectural Standards Rules, not the C&R's, to "allow" them. The ASC Rules can be changed with Board approval. The rule:

"Satellite dishes over 36" in diameter may be approved provided that the proposed site is compatible with the topography of the lot and is reasonably screened from the roadways, Common Areas and adjacent properties."

Dishes of 36" or smaller are routinely installed without approval.

Paul T

I found this online:

"Until January 1, 1997, Homeowner Associations could prohibit a homeowner from putting a satellite dish on his roof. With passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, your local HOA is prohibited from enforcing local laws banning, or even delaying mounting of, a satellite dish that is less than 39 inches (1 meter) in diameter.
What's more, they can't even require you to request permission to put the dish on your roof! And once it's up, they can't make you take it down or even move it unless you have either created a safety hazard (which they have to prove to the FCC) or you live in a historic district (listed in the National Register of Historic Places)."
It is the point that people over the years haves asked permission and filled out forms (un-necessarily) and the ACC requests are lost as we change management companies and committees.
So when a letter came to 230 of us making us remove our lawn ornaments, mailbox covers, ADT protection signs and requesting us to fill out a form for something we have had for years - we took it personally and got annoyed. It is not a big thing - but un-necassary by Federal law.
And this is why people dislike their Boards. Apparently 3-4 foot banners across fences showing sports teams are allowed, but home protection signs had to go.

Thanks for your feedback.

It's my understanding too that dishes up to apps. 39" must be permitted without unreasonable delay. In our (high rise) case they're erected on balconies, so we have rules based on our CC&Rs that the dishes must be free standing, i,.e, cannot be affixed to any wall of the balcony just as nothing else may be affixed to these walls or ceilings.

Since Federal law prohibits homeowners associations from requiring homeowners to submit requests for advance approval, ask the board what they intend to do if someone fails or refuses to comply with their request.

Forgot to add that I agree with Lynn that her Association is not using common sense.

Thank you all and - thank you Larry - Exactly -- I still think this means only that large "towers" could not be placed inside the community by TV and Radio stations without the Declarant's approval, not 329 inch dishes. The FCC law was in effect in 1997 and the builder started building in 2004 . He finished in 2006 and turned the community over to us 12/2006.
Again the FCC quote says they "can not require us to request permission" .
This started because some one will not take down a "For Sale" sign from the middle of their front yard until all garden and welcome signs and home protection signs are removed and everyone requests permission for their satellites. Why does one obstinent H/O get to dictate to the board ? Why can't they fine him for breaking the "no signs" rules without 230 h/o getting letters.? That mailing cost us over $150.

But we are working on new by-laws - they will need 66 percent approval.
I just wanted some feed back for the next meeting>

Most HOA's allow for ONLY signs of "For sale/For rent" to be displayed. All others must not be displayed. These type of signs are typically the ONLY signs allowed.

This caused us a bit of a headache as we couldn't put "No parking" signs up to make sure people parked on one side of the street only. Our streets weren't wide enough to accommodate parking on both sides and people driving down the middle. Instead we had to go to the city and have them paint our curbs red instead. The city owned our streets and they had to make a law allowing this to happen.

So your HOA is NOT off base to ask to remove garden, alarm, or other signs.

Mellisa,

Below is what the State of California crammed down our throats some years back:

"Noncommercial signs, posters, flags or banners may be made of paper, cardboard, cloth, plastic, or
fabric, and may be posted or displayed from the yard, window, door, balcony, or outside wall, but may not be made of lights, roofing, siding, paving materials, flora, balloons, any other similar building, landscaping, or decorative component, or include the painting of architectural surfaces.

Signs and posters are limited to 9 square feet, and flags or banners are limited to 15 square feet in size."

Basically, anything can be said on the sign unless it is lewd or "offensive"

Paul T

I used this rule in order to publicize that our rogue board was holding secret meetings so the noncommercial signs rule is a matter of free speech IMHO.

Tim,

From the FCC Fact Sheet regarding Over-the-Air Reception Devices:

"Procedural requirements can also unreasonably delay installation, maintenance or use of an antenna covered by this rule. For example, local rules or regulations that require a person to obtain a permit or approval prior to installation create unreasonable delay and are generally prohibited. Permits or prior approval necessary to serve a legitimate written safety or historic preservation purpose may be permissible. Although a simple notification process (e.g. post installation) might be permissible, such a process cannot be used as a prior approval requirement and may not delay or increase the cost of installation. The burden is on the association to show that a notification process does not violate our rule."

I think we are in agreement, except for our interpretations of the word "request." I understood LynneV's words "to complete requests for their satellite dishes" to imply that the board was requiring approval, which is prohibited. That is, to me, "submitting a request" implies some sort of approval process.

Also, there is a section on the FCC's website where a number of actual FCC rulings regarding individual cases are given. I believe that section is still there. Interesting reading. I seem to recall one case where an association tried three times to either prohibit a homeowner from installing a dish, or force him to take it down, even trying the safety angle. The association got shot down by the FCC all three times. What a waste of association dollars over attorney fees!

Perhaps the board is merely only seeking to document units that have installed satellite dishes, which is not prohibited. However, the word "request" doesn't imply that to me.

In any even, my question still stands: Ask the board what they intend to do if someone fails or refuses to comply.

Bruce,

I agree we are in agreement.

Your looking at the term "request" as the OP indicated the Association used.
I'm looking at the time line that this paperwork is being requested after the installation:


Further reading on the thread indicates that this is actually being done because a member who is in violation of the covenants is hollering selective enforcement:


Based on this posting, it appears that Lynn's Board is a bit fearful of legal action if they push this issue. Perhaps because that Association's past boards failed to keep the records safe and organized (as outlined in another of the OP's posting):


For this specific issue (file management), the suggestion is simple. Lynn should volunteer to serve on the ACC and organize the files (I would be willing to share how my Association accomplished a similar task after 30 years of similar file keeping issues).

Of course, if you read more into the thread, you discover that this whole issue of Satellite dishes is really a minor issue:


To summarize (as I understand the issue):

1) Association Files are incomplete and unorganized.

2) Violator hollers selective enforcement.

3) Associations can't disprove selective enforcement due to incomplete and unorganized files

4) Association attempts to correct incomplete file issue by asking members to complete request forms for exterior changes as required by the CC&Rs (there could have been a better way but this is the method the Association chose).

5) Members are agitated because they don't fully understand the issue and are focusing on the fact that it causes them more work and they wonder why records weren't properly kept.

6) One of those members started this thread which led us to believe the Association was violating federal law and what should be done about it.

My recommendation:

a) Members need to become active in the Association so the work load can be shared and things (like record management) doesn't get overlooked.

b) Board should adopt a "notification" of a Satellite dish installation form so the covenant requiring prior approval is complied with (no approval is necessary because the authority for Associations to approve dish installations was removed by Federal regulations).

c) The Board needs to better explain the issues (even if it causes them or past board members some embarrassment) so they can have the support of the membership.

d) Did I mention that the membership needs to become involved

Kelly,

I agree.

However, it appears that that Board either had other issues that aren't known to us or chose the course of action they did based on misunderstanding of the information available or information available to them that is not known to the original poster (and thus, not shared with us).

Thank you Tim and Bruce and everyone else! - if 48 h/o have had these on their roofs for 5 to 6 to 8 years - and by Fed'l law, no permission is needed - then it seems the board is picking on 48 people because one guy has a "For Sale" sign in his yard.
Any how enough said - thanks for letting me vent and for your input.

Lynne,

After briefly re-reading all this it looks like the dish may be a very small part of the puzzle. I can only speak from my own experience of working with many Directors as The Chairman of our Covenants Committee for 16 years. Many of our Directors were former high level executives in large corporations and apparently couldn't get over no longer having power over others. Also, it is my opinion that most ran for the Board because they had a specific agenda, not necessarily "for the good of the Assn".

Sounds like your Board should save their bullets for a bigger battle. :-)

Paul T

Maybe the BOD should just hope for a quick sale. Then the "For Sale" sign will be gone.

I just wanted to say that I am glad that I read this because I know that it says that we are supposed to have permission for satellite dishes, and I'm glad to know that is illegal.

They have also been going after folks who have "unsightly wires and cables" from their satellite install. This wouldn't be an issue with me except that they are working on an exclusive deal with Comcast. This doesn't mean that folks couldn't use Comcast, but it wouldn't allow satellite providers to use the pre-wired Comcast system to power the dishes, which is what causes the unsightly wires, according to my Dish Network guy.

I know we have guidelines on where the dishes can be placed (although it sounds like we have to make accommodations if they impair someone's ability to get a signal). And, while I'm sure that there are rules saying we can prohibit folks from having cables outside, I don't know how we can enforce it if we're not going to let them use their central cable line for satellite.