From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: CC&Rs - how binding are they?
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:27:41 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug11.151234.11917@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.UUCP () writes:
>In article <BssoJ9.9n@cup.hp.com> dhepner@cup.hp.com (Dan Hepner) writes:
>
>>I'm with you, Tom.  I wouldn't buy.  However, there is a need to
>>allow people to live in a neighborhood which excludes certain
>>activities.  What we usually see are laws which mandate e.g. "no
>>farm animals allowed" in an area which has been converted from
>>farms to housing, but has three small farms left.  These laws are 
>>imposed, involuntarily and with the threat of jail, upon people who 
>>never were offered the decision not to buy.
>
>Depending on the specifics of a new law/restriction, there are
>exceptions that can NOT simply be changed or eliminated because
>of the new law.  The "farm animal" example tends to be a
>"grandfathered" condition as is almost any other non-conforming
>use that was there before a new law/zone restriction was enacted.
>I have never (strong word I know) heard of a farm that
>was "forced out of operation" because they could no longer have
>farm animals due to a new zoning law.  Likewise, if you had
>an antenna up that was 100 feet high, you couldn't be forced
>to remove it if a new building code placed a limit on antenna 
>heights of say 50 feet.

Unfortunately there is first hand evidence that you are wrong.
I know of a hog farm, in operation for 40 years, that was forced
to close because a subdivision was built next to it. It had suddenly
become a "non-conforming use" and was closed as a public nuisance.
Now the developer knew the farm was there when he developed the
subdivision, and the new homeowners knew that they were moving
in next to a hog farm, but that didn't stop them from using the
law to close it down.

In a similar vein, people who move in next to airports and then
bring public pressure to bear to close the airport as a nuisance
often succeed. In both cases, a previously conforming use was
stopped from continuing to operate by people who should have
known what they were moving into.

More directly related to ham radio, I've had legal complaints filed
against my antenna because it's non-conforming and a public nuisance.
I've had to show that it is grandfathered *and* not a public nuisance.
The fact that it was grandfathered was not a sufficient defense. That
even though neighbors knew the antenna was there *before* they built
their house. Public nuisance suit defenses aren't easy or cheap.

In another instance, I was visited by the police because a complaint
was filed about the storage of a number of microwave dishes on an
open rack in the backyard. They claimed I was in violation of a new
solid waste ordinance in a residentially zoned area. Now I'd stored
dishes in that way for 20 years, but suddenly it wasn't legal.

I had a long talk with my attorney, the county planning and zoning
department, and the police. Then I built an "auxillary structure",
two stories and 2300 square feet, the minimum 5 feet from my property
line ajoining the troublesome neighbor. Now his "view" is not obstructed
by non-conforming uses. In fact all he can see out his windows is
my shop. Now I make it a point to do a lot of heavy grinding and
hammering in the shop right up to midnight when the noise control
ordinance requires me to stop. :-) :-)

Gary KE4ZV
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy