[TreeFarm]

Government regulations are written by bureaucrats who don't understand the law and reviewed and approved by lawyers don't understand the subject being regulated, which means a lot of them are flawed. The worst flaw is an ambiguity.

In this case it appears that the HOA could regulate the size of the antenna as long as their limitations don't preclude you from picking up a satisfactory local signal with a proper installation. You have no right under the law to put up an antenna for distant stations.

In other words, as I read it they may be within their rights to tell you to take down the 4228, if you could receive your local stations with a smaller antenna. Others may have a different interpretation.

I would tread gently.

 

[TreeFarm]

This is how I understand it as well, however the burden is on the HOA to prove this, which I doubt they have the knowledge, time or money to do.

HOAs usually have more resources than the homeowners who fight them. While the HOA would have only to prove the homeowner was violating the rule, the homeowner would have to prove the HOA rule was illegal, which would require an expensive expert witness. There would also be lawyers fees, court costs, etc., that the homeowner would have to bear. The HOA costs would be spread across all the homeowners, including the one with the antenna.

It's pretty much a no win situation.

 

[TreeFarm]

No, the homeowner does not have to prove the HOA rule was illegal, the burden is solely on the HOA. So if they want to spend the money to show that the resident doesn't comply with OTARD they can. In the mean time the homeowner keeps the anteena and if ruled against gets 21 days to comply. Of course the best course of action is to be a good neighbor and try to come up with a better solution so long as it is not burdensome to the homeowner. That's the whole reason for OTARD.

From the OTARD fact sheet

Q: Who is responsible for showing that a restriction is enforceable?

A: When a conflict arises about whether a restriction is valid, the local government, community association, property owner, or management entity that is trying to enforce the restriction has the burden of proving that the restriction is valid. This means that no matter who questions the validity of the restriction, the burden will always be on the entity seeking to enforce the restriction to prove that the restriction is permitted under the rule or that it qualifies for a waiver.

I was referring to court action(s), not FCC processes. Of course, the court would probably throw out any complaint that had not gone through the FCC petition/waiver process first.

I tried to read the entire regulation to see what it said for myself, instead of relying on the FCC FAQs, but the GPO server is not responding.