From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: CC&Rs - how binding are they?
Date: 16 Aug 92 15:57:54 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug14.115023.21397@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.UUCP () writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.212741.5344@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>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.
>
>I don't know what jurisdiction (state/county) this may have been in,
>but that couldn't have been in NJ.  Are you sure they forced the "hog farm"
>to cease operations ONLY on the basis of the farm not conforming
>to the rezoned uses...or was the major thrust of the effort to
>close down the farm based on other "health violations," etc.

They were able to bring public nuisance charges *because* the area
had been rezoned. When the zoning was agricultural, they would have
been laughed out of court.

>>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.
>
>But even in this case, you do not seem to be saying that the
>"airport" was rezoned AND then because of the rezoning it was shut down.

Again, changing the zoning from commercial to residential *allowed*
the nuisance suits to have standing in court.

>>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.
>
>Was the "suit" a civil case?  If so, why?  A violation of a zoning
>use would be a municipality charge against you.  Why would it take
>any more than a discussion with the town planner to verify the
>"grandfathered" status of your antenna?  If the town planner was
>in agreement that your antenna was "grandfathered" then why didn't you
>have the case dropped?  If the neighbor was the complainent, why didn't
>you have a statement from the planner as part of your defense (assuming
>this went to the local court)?   By what basis did you
>have to defend your antenna as NOT being a public nuisance?
>More in line, on what basis did the city or your neighbor base
>a claim that the antenna was a public nuisance?  I agree that
>any time you hire an attorney it'll cost $$$, but if the township planner
>was on your side, I don't see why you even ended up in court.
>
>>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.
>
>You are (IMHO) confusing zoning with other types of ordinances (eg.
>property maintenance codes, etc.)  I'm also into antique cars and have
>helped several folks get around new laws that make it illegal to
>have an unregistered car in the driveway, etc.  Those laws, however,
>are usually not zoning laws, and an automobile (or uninstalled satellite
>dishes) are not structures that are permanently installed.  They,
>therefore, are much more controllable by new ordinances than "pre-existing"
>structures.

Again, I don't think you comprehend. When I bought my property 21 years
ago, it was in an agricultural zoning. Now the zoning has been changed
by developers to high density residential. So now my property is partly
bordered by yuppies. The change in zoning allowed them to bring complaints 
about "esthetics" that would have been laughable in an agricultural zoning.
Another neighbor has a 65 Chevy up on blocks in the front yard. I think
it has a certain quintesential Southern charm. And thank God it's not
yet against some stupid zoning regulation here.

>>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. :-) :-)
>
>Now maybe I shouldn't even say this because perhaps this one
>neighbor is just a complete idiot (I do acknowledge that such people
>exist), but maybe part of the problem is your continuing to do
>everything possible to annoy the neighbor because of his/her prior 
>efforts against your antenna.  Sure doesn't seem to be a good way to
>create a good impression of ham radio operators in your neighborhood.
>Just my opinion...

My motto is don't get mad, get even. I'll drive this so and so out
of the area yet. I'm not the only long time resident who's had problems
with this transplanted yankee.

Gary KE4ZV
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy