💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

HeatherB2 (Oregon)
Posts: 16
Posted:
Our MC just notified the BOD that several homes have satellite dishes visable from the public right of way and no architectural review application has been completed for any of them.

Our CC&R's clearly state that the satellite dishes cannot be visible from the front of the house and must be approved by the BOD prior to installation.

The problem: I am the current president, and we have one Board member who has had a satellite dish up for 3 years now (before the initial turnover meeting). He claims it was resolved over a year ago after he received 2 notices from the MC to remove it and then the president at the time approved it.

I haven't received a response from the previous president on whether this was resolved and I don't have any meeting minutes that say anything. The CC&R's only say that the BOD has to approve it.

My thinking is that unless there is a written approval (ie. architectural review application) then he still needs to complete one and have it approved. I don't think the excuse "it's been there for 3 years holds water".

I want to be consistent on this issue, especially since there are several other homes. Thoughts??
ClaudiaH (Kentucky)
Posts: 27
Posted:
My thought is..... why do people have to be so dumb? I'm assuming it's a Direct TV or Dish Network dish? When I've had them install dishes on my properties before, I've said, "It can't go on the front of the house". It's never been an issue. Who are these folks who don't read their restrictions before sticking their dishes wherever they please?

As for your Board member, my thinking is with you. If he can't present it in writing, or the past president can't present it (or ever confirm he agreed to it), than the Board member needs to submit his dish for approval. What's the worst that can happen? He has to pay $100 or so for the Dish company to come out and move it?

I'd approach him nicely, if you decide to go that route, and explain that you can't expect to have compliance from the rest of the homeowners on the issue, when one board member is not in compliance. In compliance means having a written form of approval to satisfy any curious minds.
BradP (Kansas)
Posts: 2,640
Posted:
Heather:

Here is the problem...if it has been three years then the board and arc have essentially said by default that it is ok. There are states that have a time limit on how long you have as a board to go after these infractions.

I think at this point if it has gone on this long you are too late on the ones that are already up, if you chose to enforce from here on out that is your decision. I just don't think ultimately a court would side with you given the 3 year lag time.

Another issue to think about, HOA's can not prohibit placement of a satelite dish if moving it will adversely affect the quality of their reception. For example, if you make them move it to their backyard or side of the house and they can't get quality reception you can't do that.
DwightT (Idaho)
Posts: 664
Posted:
Just remember that you can't make him move it if doing so will interfere with his signal reception. We have a couple of homes in our neighborhood that are situated such that mounting a dish on the back of the home would mean that the signal would be blocked by neighboring homes. The FCC won't let you deny them access to the signal.
MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
Heather & Claudia,

Both of you need to read the FCC rule regarding satellite dish antennas. You can view and download a copy of the Fact Sheet at: www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

In a nutshell, the rule says the HOA cannot prevent a homeowner, in a planned community of single family homes, from installing a dish antenna. The board may impose certain restrictions but they cannot cause undue delay, increase in cost or restrict the homeowner from receiving or transmitting an acceptable quality signal. In order to prevent a complaint from being filed with the FCC, the board would be wise to not require prior approval of the dish antenna. They can inform the members of certain restrictions they would like to see followed; however, if those restrictions would prevent the best possible reception, then they do not have to be adhered to. On the other hand, if you live in a condo assn, the homeowner can be denied if he wants to mount the antenna on a common element. The rule only applies if the antenna is installed wholly within the exclusive use area, such as the balcony or patio.
HeatherB2 (Oregon)
Posts: 16
Posted:
Brad,

I know that if someone turns in an architectural review application and we do not make a decision within 30 days then it is considered approved.

There has never been a request for approval from the BOD on any of these satellite dishes. The board member who received 2 notices and then nothing came of it hasn't completed a request for approval that he can show.

I have also read the guidelines on satellite dishes and know we cannot deny them having one or make it so they cannot receive a siganl. The satellite dishes can be placed at the back of the house without any signal intereference in our neighborhood.

The CC&R's only say they need to essentially be placed at the back of the house and need to be approved by the BOD.
MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
Heather,

I don't know how you can say "satellite dishes can be placed at the back of the house without any signal interference in our neighborhood", unless every house in your neighborhood faces the same direction - exactly! There aren't any trees anywhere to block a signal either! The fact that some h/o's have installed dish antennas w/o first getting approval is a moot point. Keep in mind the fact that any h/o who has installed a dish antenna in an area not to the liking of the board only has to have the provider state it's the best location for him to recieve a signal. The board cannot make that decision; only the provider can.

IMO, the board should just resign themselves to the fact that some homeowners are going to install satellite dish antennas w/o first obtaining approval and some satellite dish antennas are going to be installed at a location other than the back of their house. Just wait until someone wants to install a 10' mast on their roof. You cannot deny that either! From the FCC Fact Sheet: "In addition, antennas covered by the rule may be mounted on "masts" to reach the height needed to receive or transmit an acceptable quality signal (e.g. maintain line-of-sight contact with the transmitter or view the satellite)." Get used to it, the FCC rules are Federal law.
HeatherB2 (Oregon)
Posts: 16
Posted:
Oh no that is pretty funn. I could care less, I just want to make sure that when other homeowners are complaining about it at a meeting that I can justify why they are allowed to mount dishes on the front of their homes.

Many homes are within feet of each other facing exactly the same direction and some have them on the back, some on the front. So the signal isn't an issue.

I would prefer to change the CC&R's so we don't have to deal with this, but since it is in there we cannot just ignore it. I wonder if it would be acceptable to have each homeowner complete an application requesting approval and we make a note on each one that it would cause undue cost or cause a poor signal. Then it is on file and a non-issue?

We don't really have the funds nor the participation in our community to change anything in the CC&R's unfortunatley. Maybe a resolution clarifying the rule?
GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491
Posted:
Heather IMO wanting the ACC approval violates the undue delay part of the statute. I would rule that section of the CC&R's invalid and refer everyone to the FCC statute. Somewhere in your documents should be a clause that if one section of the CC&R's is found to violate the law then only that section is invalidated not the whole document.

Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions
HeatherB2 (Oregon)
Posts: 16
Posted:
I wasn't suggesting we get an approval before they get a satellite dish. Just that we get one to have on file at some point. I don't see how that could be a problem.

Thanks for everyones suggestions and information. I will take this to the homeowners and get their suggestions as well.
GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491
Posted:
Heather you wrote: Our CC&R's clearly state that the satellite dishes cannot be visible from the front of the house and must be approved by the BOD prior to installation.

I know that if someone turns in an architectural review application and we do not make a decision within 30 days then it is considered approved.

There has never been a request for approval from the BOD on any of these satellite dishes. The board member who received 2 notices and then nothing came of it hasn't completed a request for approval that he can show.

I would prefer to change the CC&R's so we don't have to deal with this, but since it is in there we cannot just ignore it. I wonder if it would be acceptable to have each homeowner complete an application requesting approval and we make a note on each one that it would cause undue cost or cause a poor signal. Then it is on file and a non-issue?

We don't really have the funds nor the participation in our community to change anything in the CC&R's unfortunatley. Maybe a resolution clarifying the rule?

So I hope you'll understand my confusion.

Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions
MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491
Posted:
Glen, I think what she's saying is, in order to have the i's dotted and the t's crossed in her enforcement history, so as not to possible succumb to a rearing of the ugly "selective enforcement" head by some homeowner along the way on some OTHER CC&R, they need to get clean with the DOCUMENTATION of the satellite dishes.

If the CC&Rs say there must be an arch request on file, then put one on file. Have the owner submit a request.

Then what she is saying is that the board notates on each one the reference to the FCC ruling/guidance and that the board acknowledges such and is waiving the compliance to the CC&R because of it.

Just having a homeowner say, "I got approval" and not having anything on record to indicate proof of that isn't going to cut it if the enforcement on that particular home is challenged.

I think it's smart to request from any resident that does NOT have the approval form, that they fill it out. I would make sure they understand it is a formality that will protect them later on down the road because until they receive that formal approval they are technically out of compliance.

By the way, in Kentucky there IS not time limit for enforcement of a violation. We also don't have an automatic approval if approval isn't granted in XX number of days.

Many states and HOAs are the same. So it's just not accurate to imply that 3 years is too late to enforce against a violation.

We are in the process of just that situation right now. The violation is actually 4 years old. It was not discovered until last year (at which time it was 3 years old). It took us about 8 months of back and forth letters and getting an attorney involved, but the violation is in the process of being rectified. Their deadline is June 10. The rectification is almost complete so they will be "legal" way before the deadline.

GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491
Posted:
Michele I understand that. However the FCC's own interpretation of the law precludes prior approval as an unreasonable delay so they're going to approve something after it's installed seems a little silly to me but if that's what floats their boat then go for it. Much as we might like it to be otherwise an H/O in a single family dwelling can pretty much put the receiver anywhere on his property that he can best receive a signal. The HOA can only regulate its placement in a specific location if it doesn't interfere with the signal or cause an undue delay or expense to comply.

Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions
BradP (Kansas)
Posts: 2,640
Posted:
The other point that no one has talked about is the three year time frame some of these dishes have been up. Can you really go back after 3 years and try to make someone move something? I don't think you can, perhaps others have different opinions.
BruceF1 (Connecticut)
Posts: 2,535
Posted:
Heather & Claudia,

Mary gave you very good advice. You should read the Q&A Fact Sheet at the FCC address she gave you. It covers the FFC rule on dish antennas in very clear, easy to understand language. If you would like a copy of the actual rule, it's attched to this post.

To summarise some points raised by others in this thread:

1. You cannot require a homeowner to get approval in advance. That is regarded as undue delay and is not enforceable. To require approval afterward is moot. It's like closing the barn door after the horse got away. What are you going to do? Disapprove the installation after it has been done? Changing the antenna after it has been installed would most likely result in unreasonable cost to the homeowner and couldn't be enforced anyway. You can't order the homeowner to take it down. The only thing you can do is automatically approve every installation, so what's the point?

2. You can place certain restrictions on dish antennas and those restrictions must be followed, but, if the restrictions result in unreasonable cost or if the homeowner cannot get acceptable reception, then the restrictions are unenforceable.

3. If you read the Q&A you will see that the burden of proof is on the association to prove that the restriction is valid. What this means is that, for example, suppose the association says that all antennas have to be in a location that cannot be seen from the street. The homeowner says he can't get reception by following the restriction and has to place the anntenna in a location that can be seen from the street. It is not up to the homeowner to prove that this is so, it is up to the association to PROVE that the homeowner can get reception by following the restriction.

If you read the Q&A and check out some of the links at the bottom which take you to actual cases, you will see that the FCC pretty much puts the homeowner in the driver's seat when it come to dish antennas.

Our community of single-family homes is laid out in such a way that there are almost no homes where a dish antenna can be placed out of sight. They really don't look all that bad to me. One home even has two dish antennas side by side mounted on it. You will also note that the FCC rule doesn't even permit an association to place restrictions on the number of antennas a homeowner can have. If you follow the cases, as I remember it, there's a case where a homeowner had a number of antennas mounted on masts in his yard. The association tried to have the homeowner take them down and leave only one, but, as I remember it, the association finally lost.
📎 Attachments (1):

⏸ Downloads temporarily unavailable

📄1517471433871.pdf(31 KB)
MC2 (Virginia)
Posts: 26
Posted:
Heather B2,

Mary A1 and BruceF1 gave you very good advice. Remember, this federal law was created to solve this specific problem.
BernardH (Virginia)
Posts: 28
Posted:
Please use the following links to read this at the FCC's website:

The bottom line is that federal law simply trumps a rule the HOA have established and the architectural standards must be reviewed.

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

Here are two more links that pertain to this issue.

http://realtytimes.com/rtcpages/20030813_satellite.htm

http://realtytimes.com/rtapages/20041228_dishrestrictions.htm

The bottom line is that federal law simply trumps a rule the HOA have established and the architectural standards must be reviewed
MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
Heather,

You really seem to be hung up on the approval requirement. As Glen and Bruce have said, its a moot point. If any one complains that so and so didn't get prior approval all the board has to say is that Fed. law exempts it and Fed law trumps our CCRs. Case closed! Sorry, but I think what you are proposing to do is just "busy work" and really not of any benefit.

IMO, the board should adopt a policy, by resolution, outlining any restrictions they want to put on the placement of satellite dish antennas but also let the members know that IAW fed law they cannot ban them; cannot enforce the restrictions if it interferes with their reception; and cannot insist on prior aproval if it causes an undue delay in installation. This resolution would be sent to all members of the assn. This is what my assn did and in fact quoted exactly from the FCC rule. The following statement was inserted into the policy: "Any rule within this policy which conflicts with FCC regulations shall be invalidated and this policy shall be modified to conform to current FCC regulations."
MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By BradP on 05/17/2008 6:13 AM
The other point that no one has talked about is the three year time frame some of these dishes have been up. Can you really go back after 3 years and try to make someone move something? I don't think you can, perhaps others have different opinions.

Brad, I have, in fact, addressed that here:

" By the way, in Kentucky there IS not time limit for enforcement of a violation. We also don't have an automatic approval if approval isn't granted in XX number of days.

Many states and HOAs are the same. So it's just not accurate to imply that 3 years is too late to enforce against a violation.

We are in the process of just that situation right now. The violation is actually 4 years old. It was not discovered until last year (at which time it was 3 years old). It took us about 8 months of back and forth letters and getting an attorney involved, but the violation is in the process of being rectified. Their deadline is June 10. The rectification is almost complete so they will be "legal" way before the deadline. "

Also, the requirement of the approval, as long as it is in the deed restrictions, is NOT a "moot point."

It is, however, a formality that, until they get the verbiage changed, would be in their best interests to continue doing.

The "approval" may only require a templated language deferring the the FCC regulations "approving through waiver" of the satellite dish placement approval requirement" so that they can show that they do, in fact, enforce all deed restrictions equally.

We don't require approval for satellite dish placement OR installation, so we wouldn't do that. But if our documents required us to do it, we would comply by having the homeowner fill out the document and us keeping it on file that we have complied with the CC&Rs.

It seems silly. But as you all frequently point out, what does it hurt if it allows you to CYA during any potential selective enforcement litigation on other CC&Rs.

MC2 (Virginia)
Posts: 26
Posted:
This is the problem when people don't respect Federal Regulation. FCC ruling state you don't need a "through waiver". As many have said before is against FCC Regulation the homeowner have the right to file a complaint with the FCC (I really hope he/she do so). You can have deed restrictions but you can enforce those restrictions "moot point.", if they are breaking Federal law.
MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By BradP on 05/17/2008 6:13 AM
The other point that no one has talked about is the three year time frame some of these dishes have been up. Can you really go back after 3 years and try to make someone move something? I don't think you can, perhaps others have different opinions.

Good point, Brad. There is a doctrine of law called "laches", which pertains to an ". . .undue delay in asserting a right or privilege - compare to statute of limitations". This could be the basis of a lawsuit were the BOD to try to enforce a violation that goes back several years.
MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491
Posted:
There are all sorts of variables as to why a board might not have enforced for 3 or 5 or 8 years.

Again, we have had this situation come up a few times before, and are in the tail end of dealing with one now. The resident who tried to use such a position/defense, or rather the person's attorney who tried to use such a position/defense, ultimately determined he would lose in court based on the circumstances and has since advised his client to comply. The deadline for the compliance is early June, and the resident is almost finished with the re-model that will bring her into compliance.

MC2, you apparently aren't grasping the points I am making about the association requiring the approval to be formalized, even though the approval will simply validate the FCC's precidence.

The board will be protecting the integrity of their documents. It's simply a formality to close a loophole others might use at a later date to try to prove the HOA engages in selective enforcement.

The smart thing to do would be to make an amendment to the documents to remove any restrictions on satellite dishes. But as long as it's in the documents, that an approval is required, (it doesn't have to be prior approval), then they should have a document in the resident's file that that CC&R requirement was completed.

MC2 (Virginia)
Posts: 26
Posted:
MichelleD,
I understand your point about the formality however, if the homeowner doesn’t want to request a waiver federal law is on his/her side. I'm all for closing the loophole. The BOD should act fast to amend the CC&R.
GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491
Posted:
Michele I usually agree with you on most points but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. The declaration is unenforceable so as Mary pointed out this is just busy work with no point to it. Most documents have a "Severability Clause" in them. We have one in both the declarations and in the bylaws so IMO it is not selective enforcement to not follow an invalid section. From our Declarations:

Section 14.7. Severability. The invalidity of any covenant, restriction, condition, limitation or any other provision of this Declaration or of any part of the same, shall not impair or affect in any manner the validity, enforceability or effect of the rest of this Declaration.

Have the BOD declare the section invalid because it violates FCC Guidelines and move on.

Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions
BradP (Kansas)
Posts: 2,640
Posted:
Michele:

I would be curious to see what a judge would say about something that hadn't been enforced for over 3 plus years. Roger is eerily silent, but I thought he had mentioned in Colorado if the process isn't started within a year then the board is out of luck. Of course each state is different.
GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491
Posted:
Actually Brad he said that they have two years after the violation is noticed. So even if something had been in violation for ten years before it was noticed they would still have two years to enforce on it.

Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions
JohnM3 (Florida)
Posts: 288
Posted:
Folks Florida just passed a bill House Bill 679 that states no paperwork required for a Satelite Dish and no HOA can prevent the placement of it. They used 3 pages to talk about it and American Flags as well as MIA and State Flags. Finally some sense arises from the dust.
MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
Glen & Michele,

For those docs that do not have a severability clause (who knows, there may be some!), but even for those that do, IMO it's wise for the board to adopt a satellite dishe antenna policy. Since Fed law trumps the CCRs, IMO, it's not necessary to amend the CCRs. The policy would reference the CCR restriction; quote the FCC rule, outline any HOA imposed restrictions, then close with the statement: "Any rule within this policy which conflicts with FCC regulations shall be invalidated and this policy shall be modified to conform to current FCC regulations." This will serve to CYA should anyone ever yell "selective enforcement" as Michele is so worried about.
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:

John,
Could you please copy and paste that here for us(679 part on sattelite dishes) or give me the exact site? Thanks!
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:


change to "satellite " spelling error
HaroldS (Arizona)
Posts: 906
Posted:
This FCC law has been in effect since I believe 1996; yet current CC&Rs (mine included) still address this issue as if it didn't exist; by copying boilerplate, unenforceable rules governing these dishes, instead of writing the correct method under which associations CAN control these dishes.
I don't think it unreasonable for an association to require an ARC request just to be certain the dish is correctly installed. If in an unapproved location, the member should have to prove the reception would be affected, and not just being the easiest way for the installer.
By now, everyone should be aware of this FCC rule, yet we are still discussing it 12 years later.
MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By HaroldS on 05/18/2008 12:53 PM
This FCC law has been in effect since I believe 1996; yet current CC&Rs (mine included) still address this issue as if it didn't exist; by copying boilerplate, unenforceable rules governing these dishes, instead of writing the correct method under which associations CAN control these dishes.
I don't think it unreasonable for an association to require an ARC request just to be certain the dish is correctly installed. If in an unapproved location, the member should have to prove the reception would be affected, and not just being the easiest way for the installer.
By now, everyone should be aware of this FCC rule, yet we are still discussing it 12 years later.

Harold,

Have you read the rule lately? The FCC explicitly states: "Local regulations that require a person to obtain a permit or approval prior to installation create unreasonable delay and are generally prohibited." We all know how long some A/C's take to approve a request -- we've heard the stories many, many times. Also, you state the member should have to prove the reception would be affected. Well, that's strike two for you, because the FCC says: "When a conflict arises about whether a restriction is valid, the local government, community assn, property owner, or mgmt entity that is trying to enforce the restriction has the burden of proving that the restriction is valid."
LaverneB (Florida)
Posts: 129
Posted:
I am in Florida and we are having the problem now.I have no quams about having the dish but only the placement of it on the home...we are a 216 planned community of single homes.Two people just put up doshes and one looks rediculous! 4 feet or more high, and visable from road. This man has been a menace since he moved in.Where can I find that bill 676?
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:

Hi Laverne,
I think that you want Bill 679. I have asked the poster-John- to provide us the statement that he is referring to because I cannot find it antwhere. Lets hope he responds.

If the one dish is 4 foot, that goes above the FCC limits of size for allowance. The limit is 1 meter or 39 inches.
BruceF1 (Connecticut)
Posts: 2,535
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By HaroldS on 05/18/2008 12:53 PM
This FCC law has been in effect since I believe 1996; yet current CC&Rs (mine included) still address this issue as if it didn't exist; by copying boilerplate, unenforceable rules governing these dishes, instead of writing the correct method under which associations CAN control these dishes.
I don't think it unreasonable for an association to require an ARC request just to be certain the dish is correctly installed. If in an unapproved location, the member should have to prove the reception would be affected, and not just being the easiest way for the installer.
By now, everyone should be aware of this FCC rule, yet we are still discussing it 12 years later.

Harold,

You should read the FCC Q&A and the case histories available on the FCC website.

1. The FCC has ruled, repeatedly, that requiring approval is unreasonable delay and is not enforceable.

2. HOA's cannot justify requiring Architectural review to insure antennas are installed correctly. The HOA must supply the owner with installation guidlines or requirements (and they can only pertain to safety considerations, and the HOA has to specify what they are. One HOA tried to make their safety requirements general; they got shot down - 3 times! Most HOAs don't have AC members qualified in this area. You would need to hire an engineer.).

3. If the antenna is installed in an unapproved location, the HOA cannot require a homeowner to prove that is the only place he can get reception. To the contrary, the FCC has repeatedly ruled that the burden of proof is on the HOA that the restriction is valid. The HOA has to PROVE that the homeowner CAN get acceptable reception in the approved location. And, with satellite signals, which are digital, signal strength measurements aren't enough.

4. "The antenna was put in an unapproved loaction because it was the easiest way for an installer" is not an acceptable argument for an HOA either. The easiest way is often the least expensive way, and an HOA cannot require a location that results in an unreasonable cost. Thus, if it's less expensive for a homeowner to put a dish in an unapproved location than in an approved location, the FCC says the owner can do it. The HOA restriction is unenforceable, and the HOA has to prove otherwise.

The URL for the FCC Q&A is given in an earlier post in this thread.

HaroldS (Arizona)
Posts: 906
Posted:
Mary - thanks for the updates. But I wonder, since the onus is on them, how the association can prove reception is just as good in a less conspicuous location, without actually paying someone to move it there and have an independent body certify the reception? And if it isn't acceptable, move it all back. Amazing.
If what you are saying is correct, then in practicality associations actually have no say in where it can go - except not on common area - or is that nullified too?
So then shouldn't the whole clause about satellite dishes be removed to make volunteer's time less demanding on something they can't control any way?
BruceF1 (Connecticut)
Posts: 2,535
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By DonnaS on 05/18/2008 3:16 PM

Hi Laverne,
I think that you want Bill 679. I have asked the poster-John- to provide us the statement that he is referring to because I cannot find it antwhere. Lets hope he responds.

If the one dish is 4 foot, that goes above the FCC limits of size for allowance. The limit is 1 meter or 39 inches.

Donna,

I believe Laverne may be referring to a dish that is mounted on a mast. The FCC rule does permit a dish to be mounted on a mast, as long has it is not more than 12 feet over the roof. A four-foot mast would be in compliance.

Also, John had referred to "House Bill 679." To me, that means a bill being considered by the legislature, not a law or an act that has been passed. That may be why you are having trouble finding it. From my experience in watching the legislative process almost daily (not in Florida, though), most bills never make it all the way through. You can probably search your state government website for bills being considered, and maybe pull up the current status. I know I can do that here in CT. I think some people get confused and think that a bill is the same as a law. It's not. I know John said the bill had passed, but if it has, you should be able to find that out. Maybe it passed one house but not another.
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:

Bruce,
Bills 679 and 1169 have cleared the House and are just waiting for the Gov. to sign them, if he has not already done so. I have checked the web site and cannot find the part that John referred to. But that sure doesn't mean that it isn't there. I just am not clever enough to smoke it out. But Thanks for the info.
MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By HaroldS on 05/18/2008 3:28 PM
Mary - thanks for the updates. But I wonder, since the onus is on them, how the association can prove reception is just as good in a less conspicuous location, without actually paying someone to move it there and have an independent body certify the reception? And if it isn't acceptable, move it all back. Amazing.
If what you are saying is correct, then in practicality associations actually have no say in where it can go - except not on common area - or is that nullified too?
So then shouldn't the whole clause about satellite dishes be removed to make volunteer's time less demanding on something they can't control any way?

Harold,

I don't know that it's necessary to amend the CCRs to remove a prohibition against satellite dish antennas. It should be understood that Fed law trumps the CCRs. But I would recommend adopting a resolution outlining the FCC rule and including any restrictions the HOA might want to put on placement but also inform the members these restrictions cannot be inforced if they place undue delay or cost on installation. Some of the posters here were concerned with the fact that their CCRs require prior approval and if approval is not given for the antenna someone might claim selective enforcement. I don't agree with that, but, of course, that's neither here nor there.

The rule is still the same regarding common areas which may make it hard for a condo owner to mount a satellite dish antenna.

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491
Posted:
Mary, I would still recommend removing it for all the reasons I mentioned above.

It would SEEM that even though the CC&Rs might have the severability phrase/clause that it wouldn't need to be amended or removed.

However, we all know how sometimes things might get in front of judges or arbitrators who don't necessarily deal a lot with HOAs. There have been some pretty weird decisions over something that would seem a no-brainer to most of us who have been doing this for a while.

My biggest concern is ALWAYS maintaining the integrity of the documents so that WE can maintain our ability to adequately and properly and FAIRLY enforce the CC&Rs.

If you have some HOs having forms on file and some not, and the diversity of those (some forms, some not) stretches over numerous years and several incarnations of board makeup, a clever and stubborn HO who is being pushed to comply with some OTHER CC&R that he might be violating COULD use this type of thing to indicate what would appear to be a pattern of selective enforcement by the HOA.

So if the requirement for approval (whether before or after or at all) were removed, then the fact that some have waiver forms and some don't could not be converted to indicate an alleged pattern of selective enforcement.

In that vein, if the requirement for approval were NOT removed, but you had a board-signed waiver in each file of each homeowner who has a satellite dish, then the attempt to prove an alleged pattern of selective enforcement is also diluted.

Yes, it is "busy" work, and only paper pushing and a C-Y-A (which I generaly detest C-Y-As, but sometimes they are necessary), but it is a dotted i or a crossed t that will further support your board's contention that it uniformly enforces CC&Rs, without bias or prejudice.

The opportunity for a negative judgment or a judgment going south is essentially removed.

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
Michele,

Well all I can say is if you feel this strongly then your board should request that an approval be completed, even if it is after the fact. I'm not saying the board cannot do that, all I'm saying is that requiring a prior approval would cause undue delay which is an outright violation of the FCC rule. However, the board wants to handle this to ensure they have proper documentation in their records while still ensuring there is no undue delay is certainly OK. As the saying goes, "whatever floats your boat". LOL Frankly, even though I called it "busy work", I do admire a board, such as yours, that is very concerned about always doing things IAW the gov. docs. As we've all heard just on this forum, there are many out there who don't.
MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491
Posted:
Well, this particular discussion is all academic for me, anyway.

We don't have a satellite approval/placement restriction in our CC&Rs.

If we did, I would move to have it formally stricken from the documents. It's not that hard to do and makes it all clean and pretty once again!

LOL

HeatherB2 (Oregon)
Posts: 16
Posted:
I guess the only reason I am "hung up" on the documentation is because it wasn't documented prior to me becoming president and has now caused a lot of unnecessary research on the issue.

I want documentation for several reasons:

*protect the HO later if it ever comes up by a future BOD.
*protect the BOD from complaints that we are ignoring CC&R's.

I think documenting it now will save a lot of time and headaches later on. I know it sure would have saved me some time!!
KirkW1 (Texas)
Posts: 1,665
Posted:
Your best time saver would be to pass a resolution that recognizes the FCC ruling and their intent to abide by said ruling. Then work to amend the CC&Rs in such a manner that they will remain in compliance should the ruling from the FCC change again.
TracyT (Maryland)
Posts: 228
Posted:
Our CCR written in 2000 says:

"No outside television aerial or radio antenna, satellite dish, or other aerial or antenna for either reception or transmission, shall be maintained upon the Property except that such aerials or antennae may be erected and maintained within the dwellings located upon the Property. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, a satellite dish or disk no larger than twenty-four (24) inches in diameter may be installed and maintained on a Lot and outside of a dwelling, so long as such dish or disk is screened and otherwise hidden so it cannot be seen from any adjacent Lot or street.”

If I read the rule (and FAQs) correctly I’m proposing the following for our guideline document and would appreciate any feedback about its acceptability or not.

“In accordance with FCC regulations (47 CFR 1.4000) a satellite dish or antenna, as defined by the rule, does not require application/approval prior to installing. The FCC rule also doesn’t limit the placement of antennas. However, each homeowner is reminded that although there are no restrictions on placement of dish antennas, it is NOT the installers “job” to protect the value of the association. Each homeowner is requested to make reasonable attempts to shield the dish from view of public rights-of-way.

The homeowner is required to file the county safety permit with CC for any dish antenna that exceeds 12’ above the roof line.

Television, radio and other aerials are NOT covered by the FCC rule and in accordance with our covenant are NOT allowed.

In addition, no satellite dish can exceed 39” (1 meter).”

I doubt the HOA will plan to file a revision of the CCR or bother with a paper trail as the guideline doc. is published on our web site.

Thanks. Tracy

BrianL (Maryland)
Posts: 23
Posted:
Tracy,

TV antennas are covered by the FCC rule. See #3 below.

From the FCC site:

Q: What types of antennas are covered by the rule?

A: The rule applies to the following types of antennas:

(1) A "dish" antenna that is one meter (39.37") or less in diameter (or any size dish if located in Alaska) and is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct-to-home satellite service, or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals via satellite.

(2) An antenna that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement and is designed to receive video programming services via broadband radio service (wireless cable) or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals other than via satellite.

(3) An antenna that is designed to receive local television broadcast signals. Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements.

In addition, antennas covered by the rule may be mounted on "masts" to reach the height needed to receive or transmit an acceptable quality signal (e.g. maintain line-of-sight contact with the transmitter or view the satellite). Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements for safety purposes. Further, masts that extend beyond an exclusive use area may not be covered by this rule.

TracyT (Maryland)
Posts: 228
Posted:
Brian,

Thanks. I'll strike TV antennas from the guideline. Did the rest of "guideline" sound ok? T
KirkW1 (Texas)
Posts: 1,665
Posted:
I would recommend that you prohibit antennas not covered by the FCC Over The Air Device (OTARD) rule. Then go on to state that the antenna should be located out of public view when possible. In short, you can place restrictions on placement as long as such restrictions do not cause undue burden. (And an undue burden is considered extra cost or delayed installation.) It would be well to mention that homeowners should work to protect the value of their property as well as that of the neighbors.
JimP23 (Colorado)
Posts: 1
Posted:
To see what your rights are, under the law, simply go to:

https://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/consumerdish.pdf

Code of Federal Regulations
Context:
Title 47 - Telecommunication. CHAPTER I - FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. SUBCHAPTER A - GENERAL. PART 1 - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE. Subpart S - Preemption of Restrictions That "Impair" the Ability to Receive Television Broadcast Signals, Direct Broadcast Satellite Services, or Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Services or the Ability To Receive or Transmit Fixed Wireless Communications Signals.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2005-title47-vol1/xml/CFR-2005-title47-vol1-sec1-4000.xml

Installing Consumer-Owned Antennas and Satellite Dishes
TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,061
Posted:
Jim,

Welcome to the forum.

The link you provided is good info.

Typically it is best not to reactivate old threads (in this case, one that is almost eight years old). This is because laws change and what may have been good advice when the thread was created may be bad advice now. Depending on the thread, it can become confusing to readers of that thread.

Again, Welcome to the forum.

Tim

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

  • ✓ Ask follow-up questions
  • ✓ Share your experience
  • ✓ Get expert advice
  • ✓ Access 350,000 discussions
Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here