On (13 May 96) Ed Kriston wrote to Ray Wade...
 EK> Hi Ray,  I have checked into the State and county parts and everything
 EK> is OK there.  It is not a development and there is no community
 EK> association.  I am directly across the street from a very LARGE farm
 EK> and there are only four houses on my side of the street.
I guess I didn't make myself clear. Part of the your abstract contains
the "Deed of Dedication". This is the document that has been filed at
the County Court house that contains how the land has been "cut up" into
lots for building single family (or whatever) houses. ALL land was, at
one time, in large plots suitable for farming, Federal (like parks) or
industrial use. After we took the land from the Indians it was divided
up into these general areas and bought and sold by individuals. Only the
land that was comprised of "townships" was long-ago subdivided into
lots.
Later, the other kinds of land was divyed up the same way. But land that
has been subdivided for housing by a developer or home builder contains
"restrictions" that are part of the Deed of Dedication, meaning what the
developer plans for the subdivided lots. He has "dedicated" the usage.
This ALWAYS has a section called "covenants" which outlines and sets the
rules for future development for ALL construction in the sub-division.
Typically the "restrictive covenants" set the, for example, minimum
square footage of each house, the type of roof (asphalt or wood shingles,
etc) the "set-back" from the street and internal lot edges which
contains the house and attachment and so forth.
Also, in this section, the developer can set other rules. For example,
he CAN put in there multiple restrictions AGAINST anything he cares to,
providing those "can't-do" items do not conflict any existing law. For
example, it was very common, up to about 1950 or so to put in
restrictions against ownership of any lot by a "coloured" person. My
wife and I owned a piece of property that not only had this, but
also set the number of hours that a "coloured" person could even be
IN the addition. That sort of restriction is now illegal. Similarly he
can say there are to be "no outside antennas". THAT restriction *is*
legal! I now own a house that the covenants call for the developers
written approval on ANY construction in the division. This type of
"restriction" is very common because the developer wants to set the
rules for everybody who may buy a lot from him on what they can build
there if he is not the builder himself. I got an "approval" from him
on my tower BEFORE we would sign the deed. That particular covenant is
"time-limited" and expired after, as I recall, the addition was five
years old. The point is, the guy that writes the original set of
covenants can do as he damn well pleases! It is the "Golden Rule". The
man that has the Gold (or owns the development rights), sets the Rules!
When you sign the deed when buying a house or lot, your signature
confirms that you AGREE with all these "covenants" and you and your
fellow neighbors are bound by the restrictions for all time.
There does *not* have to be a "home owners association" to enforce the
"covenants". You, as a signatory of the deed, are bound by law to follow
them.
 EK> I intend on getting the hole dug during the week after I sign the
 EK> papers and get the base in that weekend.  I don't intend on even
 EK> having the tower at the house until the weekend that it goes up.  I
 am EK> seriously thinking about putting up the tower and antenna and
 having EK> everything ready but not running the cable into the house
 and hooking EK> it up.  I figure the TVI/RFI complaints will probably
 start and I will EK> really enjoy walking them out to the tower and
 showing them that it EK> isn't even hooked up.
Sounds like a plan....
... Kamikaze Tutor:  "Watch carefully; I'll only do this once!"
--- PPoint 2.00
---------------