RESTRICTIVE COVENTENTS INTRODUCTION I'm not quite sure why I attempted modification of my antenna prohibiting deed restriction. But, it followed a renewed interest in old radios which was rekindled last summer subsequent to helping my wife and mother-in-law clean out a lifetime collection of old tools my father-in-law had collected. Shortly thereafter I bought a 1939 shortwave console radio, followed by a late '20's battery radio and then started attending local swapmeets and got plugged into radio newsgroups and BoatAnchors list. The point of no return (or arguably insanity) was when I bought a little 33 foot crank-up tower thinking I'd just nestle it in among the trees in the back yard so that no one would notice. After carefully weighing antenna location options, I concluded it would likely be a costly mistake to put up the tower given the existing restriction. Corrective actions had previously been taken against neighbors who violated the restriction. At least one satellite dish had disappeared shortly after being installed as had a pay TV antenna. Other sorts of deed restriction violations had likewise been shortlived due to complaints brought by certain neighbors. Well, money being the great motivator it is, rather than putting up the tower I opted first for a trip to the safe deposit box to review the restrictions and hopefully ascertain what remedies might exist for this most unacceptable situation. I read through the restrictive convenants carefully. I had remembered a ten year limitation and indeed one existed (which coincidentally had expired earlier in the year), but the ten year limitation applied only to the developers interest. The restrictions remained in effect and were enforceable, but only by the "lotowners". I noticed a clause permitting modification of the deed restrictions if 75% of the "lotowners" agreed. After a few hours of reading through the inordinately long and drawn out restrictive covenant (time after time rereading clauses I only partially understood), I detected something which I at first thought I must be misinterpreting: The deed restrictions seemed to apply to exactly 6 adjoining lots out of hundreds in the subdivision. In my mind this had potential for simplifying the task of modifying the restrictions. Eventually, my interpretation turned out to be correct and this little oddity in the restrictions was a major factor in accomplishing the task within a relatively short time period. While I don't know how common it is for deed restrictions to apply to groups of lots in a subdivision, I suspect that it is not uncommon. My subdivision was developed by the Trammel Crow Company, one of the largest land developers (if not the largest) in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex and the restrictions used were boilerplate. The reason the restrictions apply to only a small number of lots is that different builders purchased lots in the subdivision at different times and the restrictions were imposed on groups of lots as the lots were sold. Hence, while all lots have the same or similar restrictions, legally, control of the restrictions and enforcement of them applies only within groups of lots. THE PROCESS The first things I did were to contact the ARRL soliciting guidance and support and to contact lawyers. Disappointment was immediate. After contacting a half-dozen real estate attorneys, most clearly did not want to be bothered with this sort of thing and only one would even give me an estimate. To make things worse I couldn't get a clue as to whether my interpretation of the restrictive covenant was even correct or whether I was overlooking something obvious. Naturally, the single estimate received was not cheap, but neither was it totally out of line with what I expected. Fortunately contacting the ARRL eventually turned out to provide big dividends although that this would be so was not initially obvious. A couple of weeks after sending the ARRL e-mail, they provided what appeared to be a standard response which included a "Volunteer Counsel" list. I immediately tried contacting the single VC listed for Fort Worth (in Tarrant county, the same as Grapevine), and tried, and tried ...for a couple of weeks. For some reason the ARRL hadn't provided a list of attorneys in Dallas so I had no other options at that time. Early on I also approached the City of Grapevine to find out what restrictions the city might have on antennas. Yes indeed, about ten pages worth. The city had implemented a comprehensive set of antenna restrictions back in 1993 which, summed up, state that no one besides hams can have much in the way of antennas. (Oh, the drawbacks of the suburbs.) The city ordinance grudgingly acknowledged the FCC order requiring municipalities to allow hams to erect antennas and the city appeared to comply with the intent of that ruling, if not the spirit. The bottom line was a $10 permit fee, placement limitations, 65' height limitation, EIA tower type requirement and PE approval. (PE approval? heehee, not a problem, chuckle, chuckle ;^) Concurrently with worrying about whether I could ever get a lawyer to work the legal details, I spent a great deal of time wondering how best to approach the neighbors in a manner likely to obtain their consent. Since practice makes perfect, I approached a couple of non-ham and non-engineering friends to solicit opinions on how they would respond to a neighbor making a request to modify the deed restrictions. Lesson 1 - Request their PERMISSION to put up an antenna. This gets the intentions out in the open, bypasses legalese and is apparently easy for most people to accept since, in my experience at least, few people are petty enough to be offended by a simple antenna. One needs to subsequently explain that permission takes the form of modification to the deed restrictions. Lesson 2 - NEVER refer to a TOWER. It's simply a 33 foot crank-up pole with an antenna on top! Lesson 3 - ASSURE YOUR NEIGHBORS YOU WILL DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO ENSURE THAT YOUR HAM ACTIVITIES DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THEIR FAVORITE ELECTRONIC ACTIVITIES (TV, radio, stereo, telephone, etc). They are after all obliging you in what you want to do. Reciprocation here is in order. Lesson 4 - Explain that the city has a comprehensive ANTENNA ORDINANCE and allow them to review it. This can alleviate concerns about the eccentric neighbor erecting an antenna farm. Lesson 5 - Point out that under the current restrictions, no antennas are allowed, not backyard satellite dishes or even the small 18" RCA dishes. Two full weeks after attempting to contact the VC in Fort Worth, Laurance Priddy, K5LP, I found the names for several Dallas VC's but then initially couldn't reach any of them either, so I tried Priddy again. This time I finally made contact and he agreed to review the restrictive covenants and provide an opinion. His interpretation about a week later was the same as mine; the restrictive covenant applied to exactly six lots in the subdivision and was enforceable only by the owners of the six lots. However, Priddy was skeptical about being able to get the requisite 75% approval (four of five sets of lotowners considering married couples). Priddy requested that I have the neighbors sign an informal agreement first. During that same conversation he informed me that a formal modification agreement would need to have all signatures notarized. The prospect of having to obtain the signatures twice, instinctively scared me. It gave the neighbors two opportunities to disapprove my request. But, I went ahead and sought their informal agreement. For added insurance I brought along my three year old daughter (who, in any case, wouldn't have let me out the door without her!) With daughter in tow I humbly trudged door to door asking permission to put up an antenna. The neighbors voiced surprisingly little objection to an antenna per se. The prime concern involved whether it would interfere with their favorite electronic device (usually TV, but the telephone was a big concern of the women). I assured my immediate neighbors that I would do whatever it took to eliminate any interference, although I expected little. (Since some knew I was a EE, this carried some credibility.) Of the five neighbors the responses were roughly as follows: - next door neighbor concerned about TV and telephone interference - I believe she agreed in order to maintain good next door neighbor relations. - openly skeptical and wanted to review the restrictive covenant wording, antenna ordinance, etc., before agreeing - I believe the manner of approach was critical here, since I didn't really know these people. - neighbors immediately supportive - These neighbors, through the husband's work with American Airlines, had very good experiences with hams during times of natural disasters. - neighbors didn't really want to be bothered, didn't want long explanations, didn't want to review any of the material, just wanted to know where to sign. - neighbors rarely at home - Never asked this couple for permission since I received the minimum needed support from all of the neighbors I had talked with. I opted to not continue pressing the issue for fear of raising discontent which might work negatively later. It's worth noting that with couples, the husband in all cases made the decision for both. The requirement for having all signatures notarized was another matter of concern. Since I didn't know any notaries personally who I could impose upon, this seemed likely to raise the formality of the process and had the potential to dissolve the preliminary agreement obtained previously. Hiring a notary would mean getting the neighbors to agree to a mutual time for everyone to be home. Alternatively asking the neighbors individually to take the document to a notary for signing would be a significant imposition. Both options seemed to be intrusive impositions, not at all in line with my idea of keeping the process low key and both had potential to dissolve the tenuous agreement previously obtained. Consequently, I wrote Priddy a letter explaing my concerns and asking for an alternative process, even if it involved considerably more work for both of us. Fortunately, such an alternative existed, although Priddy indicated that he had never seen it exercised. The alternative he came up with involved "two disinterested credible witnesses". Priddy indicated that he might have to argue with clerks at the courthouse to record such a document, but that Texas law allowed this in lieu of notarization. After receiving the agreement from Priddy, it took another two weeks to get the witnesses and neighbors individually together for signing, but this was all done in a low key unobtrusive fashion. Not surprisingly, the neighbors did take more interest in the formal agreement than they had in the earlier one. Interestingly, the process seemed to be enhanced by the presence of a well known neighbor acting as a witness. After getting all the necessary signatures, I returned the agreement to Priddy who personally went to the courthouse to have it recorded. According to Priddy, he did have to "argue" with the clerks in order to convince them that the alternative signature process was legal and should be recorded. When Priddy wrote to me describing the process at the courthouse he added another concern and indicated there was still a slight possibility that the deed modification might not get recorded because of some technicality or other involving some strikeouts performed during the signing process or because of concerns involving the two witness process. Fortunately, it was recorded without further incident and the antenna prohibition which had been designed to run with the land forever is now history! CONCLUSIONS I am naturally quite happy to be done with that antenna prohibition. The right to have an antenna is still very new to me. I have not yet received a copy of the recorded instrument modifying the restrictions, although I have received word of the volume number and page number where it is recorded in the county records. My plans now are to first put up an inverted vee antenna on a 50' TV mast in order to test the waters before installing the 33' crank-up tower. I fear the process is not entirely concluded, as I expect to get some flak from "crazies" in the neighborhood. (If you knew some of the things complained about previously, you'd call 'em crazy too!) I hope that any such flak can be dispensed with without too much rancor, discord or expense. I have yet to submit my antenna permit request to the City of Grapevine, but I don't expect much resistance there. Realistically, the worst case scenario can probably be dispensed with readily by a phone call from Priddy. (Although I hope that won't be necessary.) Obviously, I was fortunate in a number of respects. The wording of the covenant, the age of the neighborhood, the local antenna ordinance, agreeable neighbors and the availability of an ARRL Volunteer Counsel all worked in my favor. Another significant factor is the lack of a formal neighborhood organization. (Although, I suppose it's arguable that under some situations a good neighborhood organization could be an asset.) I suspect that most situations are unique, with their own peculiarities needing to be dealt with. Nevertheless, it is obviously possible to shed some of these awful antenna prohibitions. If my neighbors are typical (and I believe they are) then simply approaching neighbors openly and directly seeking their permission to install a ham radio antenna is very likely to meet with success. My experience indicates that most people have no real objection to antennas per se and are inclined to be accommodating. I hope that sharing the details of my experience in this manner will be of some benefit to others and I hope that it will encourage others to shed their restrictions as well. My appreciation obviously goes to the ARRL for their supportive response and their foresight in providing a Volunteer Counsel network. My most sincere appreciation goes to Laurance Priddy, VC for Fort Worth, who was extremely accommodating and who prepared and followed through with the details necessary to accomplish the deed restriction changes. My best wishes to all who attempt this sort of thing. I will be quite happy to answer any further questions anyone might have. E-mail me at bill.sorsby@dlep1.itg.ti.com Regards, Bill Sorsby, N5BU bill.sorsby@dlep1.itg.ti.com