Site menu

Crown Harbor Homeowner Association

Ham Radio

Ron Barrett is a licensed Ham radio operator. His Ham radio has emergency power.


Ron's antenna allows connections beyond line-of-sight range typical of UHF/VHF transmissions and allows Crown Harbor to send/receive emergency traffic with State and National emergency centers. The radio also has a web link that allows Crown Harbor to send/receive email messages even though Crown Harbor may be without electricity nor internet service. This includes Crown Harbor residents letting loved ones in other parts of the world know that they are OK even though the rest of the Bay Area may be under a blackout. Ron is a member of the CERT Radio and Logistics team.



  • Radio antennas were forbidden by Section 3.4 of the CC&Rs. To allow Ron to have an antenna required an amendment to the existing CC&Rs.

  • The CERT Committee has made such a request that was approved by a majority of the owners. Here is the approved language:

    (j) Radio Antennas — Owners are prohibited from erecting, constructing, maintaining or placing any radio and/or electronic receiving and/or broadcasting service, including antennas, wiring or other means and/or any electrical, telephone or other wiring or similar items on the exterior of any Building or any part thereof. An exception to this rule may be granted to an owner by the board of directors for the installation of a FCC licensed Amateur Radio station for the purpose of providing the residents with communications in times of local disaster. Granting of this exception by the board requires prior review by both the CERT and Design Review committees of an application by the owner that details the nature and location of the antenna and evidence of a FCC license. The radio station antenna must be removed by the grantee of the exception upon sale of the unit housing the antenna or upon the grantee's inability or unwillingness to provide emergency communication to the community.

    The additional text appears in italics above.


Frequently Asked Questions

  • Q: Ham radio transmitters have a nasty habit of interfering with TV and radio equipment in the near transmitting field. What will this do to our home systems?
    A: Ron has been operating his mobile system, often from the parking space next to his unit, for over 10 years with a transmitter that is running the same amount of power as his station at a power level comparable to a 100-watt light bulb and hasn't received a single complaint. The antenna and its placement add no transmitted power gain over the mobile system, but simply allow much clearer reception needed for the data handling (messaging) capability of the new system. Today's commercial Amateur Radio equipment of this type is not only expensive but designed to operate in just this type of high density living environment. For over the last 30+ years, Amateur Radio equipment does not have a nasty history of interference with TVs, etc. Years ago, some manufacturers of electronic products were sold without proper radio frequency filters to prevent interference by transmitters of all kinds, i.e., police, fire, commercial radios, Amateur Radio, etc. The vast majority of today's products have the necessary filters incorporated in their units at the factory. In the very few cases involving older or poorly designed equipment, most can be cured with an easily installed very low cost external filter. Ron operates his radio equipment a matter of feet from his televisions, high-fi systems, etc. with absolutely no interference of any kind.

  • Q: I would like to know the extent of Ron's emergency power. It sounds as if he is taking on a responsibility which means in an emergency he would need many hours of power. Such an emergency would probably mean the island would be cut off for days including electricity.
    A: Ron has on order a Honda portable generator EM4000SX iAVR rated at 3.5KW (5KW surge) fully meeting California CARB environmental regulations. Based on 6.2 gallon capacity, it can provide full power for 10.1 hours for rated load and up to 16 hours at half load. Ron also has a siphon to draw from car gas tanks, so total time is a function of how much gas we collectively have — basically, weeks.

  • Q: An Owner suggested that the amendment include the provision "unless approved (unanimously) by the Board." Can this be added?
    A: Section 8.8, Quorum Requirements, of the ByLaws states: Three (3) Directors shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business for any and all purposes. Every act and decision done or made by a majority of the Directors present at a meeting duly held at which a quorum is established is the act of the Board. To make this one item different from the others would be in conflict with this section.

  • Q: Is anyone opposed?
    A: I'm sorry, but I can't support Ron's request to install a permanent antenna on his patio. There are a number of reasons, some technical and some community-oriented.

    I find Ron's response interesting. We, as neighbors, have never been informed and there's no way we could know he's been transmitting from the parking lot for 10 years. Consequently, if any of us experienced problems, we would have no idea of the cause or who or where to complain. Of course, he's had no complaints.

    Noting the quality of the new generation of ham radio equipment is nice, but has relatively no bearing on the issue. The interference caused in normal, commercial TV, and radio systems is a result of the intended signal transmitted from the ham radio system itself, not an unwanted by-product of the system. It's nothing he, as the transmitting entity, can avoid. The UHF and VHF bands he uses are very close to the UHF and VHF signals our TVs and Radios are designed to pick up. The ham signal finds it's way into the tuners of the home devices and causes the interference. It can enter from a number of sources like the shielding around your TV or radio, the cable and connectors, used or unused antenna connections, etc. The regulations set by the FCC on TV and radio manufacturers, to block or filter out such signals, are not stringent enough to protect the units from this kind of intentionally transmitted signal; especially in the near vicinity of the antenna. The only way to eliminate this interference is for each owner of the home units to install special shielding and filtering to protect their radios and TVs. How bad this interference could be or who or how many people it affects is unknown at this point and quite frankly, the FCC and the ham operators don't care as long as the transmitter is operated within the parameters of the license. This is like a "buyers beware" situation. If we permit it, and it causes problems, we're stuck because the licensing authority says he's not responsible.

    From the position of the HOA and a homeowner, why should we change the CC&Rs to benefit an individual who will enjoy the benefits of the variance on a daily basis? Some of us have moved to use "common property" for personal use in the past — moving fences, extending patios, installing air conditioners, etc. — and been shot down. How is this any different? Except in a specific, rare situation, this proposal benefits only one individual on a daily basis.

    Finally, from the position of a military communications and electronics engineer responsible for locating antennas to minimize interference and planning for emergency deployment of communications systems, I can confidently say mobile systems are considered the best option. A mobile unit is less likely to be damaged, can be moved to a more friendly, less dangerous environment and can actually be moved to a location where the propagation and reception is more beneficial. In an emergency situation, what can he offer our CERT team with a permanent system that he can not also provide with a mobile system? In fact, in an emergency situation, he could easily move his mobile system to the end of either Kings or Crown, next to the waters of the Bay and greatly improve his system performance.

    I'm sorry, but I see no significant benefit to either the CERT Team or community at large resulting from approval of a permanent installation. I cannot support the change to the CC&Rs.

    Response from Ron: I don't agree that the residents should be denied the benefits of this proposal because of a single resident's argument. It's unlikely that any proposed CC&Rs wording change on any subject would pass if it had to be unanimous I believe the proposed unanimous decision was by the board not all community members. In either case, It would be a recipe for gridlock.

    I'm glad to discuss the points raised by the homeowner:

    1. This would confer a special benefit to the person proposing the change

      This is obviously true, and I admit it, but what is the exchange? In exchange for allowing me to place a small antenna in my patio area and continue to enjoy my hobby by way of a better antenna, all the residents would benefit from a communications facility that could be vital in times of a major earthquake or other emergency. Not only that, the considerable cost of the facility ($7500) will be borne solely by me.

    2. Such a capability would be best done in a vehicle, rather than in a residence

      Sounds compelling, but the nature of the service being offered is not simply a typical voice-only capability. In fact, its major use in an emergency would be to offer digital (written messages) communications interfacing to the internet as well. The latter capability requires more equipment and workspace than can be practically accommodated in a vehicle (computer, data modem, associated power supplies, etc). Also, a typical vertical mobile antenna is remarkably inefficient as compared with the proposed patio antenna, and that would limit the long-distance coverage needed for out of area digital connection to the internet on behalf of our residents.

    3. The frequencies this antenna covers broadcasts in the VHF/UHF range of frequencies and therefore present an increased susceptibility for interference to TVs, Hi-fi equipment, etc.

      As was already stated in the 3rd bulleted item in this "Ham Radio" blog, the antenna is not for use in the VHF/UHF frequency bands. In fact, the VHF/UHF frequencies are totally inappropriate for anything but line-of-sight applications. The proposed use of the patio antenna is in an entirely different range of frequencies (7.0 — 21.3 MHz) that do not present, in today's world, an inherent susceptibility of interference.

    4. Ron's argument that he hasn't received complaints from the operation of his mobile station doesn't prove there may not have been some.

      You got me! It is true, but I agree that while it is a factual statement, it is logically fallacious, as are all attempts, no matter how well intentioned, to prove a negative. Moreover, I am aware that even if homeowners experienced interference they would have no idea that my ham operation could be the cause.

    Though it hasn't been suggested in the dialog so far, the HOA board would not be powerless to revoke its grant under this CC&Rs, if the proposed amendment included wording granting it authority to do so. The board could revoke approval if it were found that the use of the equipment resulted in proven interference to equipment owned by homeowners that could not be fixed at Ron's expense.

    See Amateurs Step In for Spate of Epic Disasters for a real-life example of the assistance that is possible and its benefits.

    Response from the Board President: The technical objection raised against the plan was made by a single community member who appears to be quite knowledgeable but claims that ham radio operating frequencies interfere with UHF and VHF signals. Research I have done suggests that interference of that type can be caused by small short range ham radio devices which use UHF, but it does not appear to be true for Ron's system which uses HF frequencies. Finally, it is not clear that a mobile unit (Ron's car) is appropriate or practical for the digital communications we would have available with the system Ron has proposed installing. While Ron has openly admitted that he would benefit from the more powerful system he has proposed (why else would he pay for it?), that does not detract from the benefit to the community he would provide. I therefore believe we should consider all sides and weigh the potential risk/benefit before making a final decision.

    Original Inquirer's Reply: I believe the voters should have both pros and cons for each argument. They deserve to know what they're voting for or into. It's obvious nobody on the Design Review Committee knew the possible interferences (how could they?) and Any typical Ham Operator isn't going to bring it up, so I had to. I've dealt with this Ham Radio interference problem more than once in my career, and I'm not very sympathetic to their cause. There are Ham frequencies in all of the communications bands. VHF and UHF are usually used for satellites. Now knowing Ron's talking HF transmissions, I wish I could say I'm more comfortable. I'm not. HF can be equally as disruptive, and data is more likely to cause problems than voice transmissions because of the power cycle. Due to the lower frequencies, the interfering signals typically enter through the power lines and power systems. Think of the power cables in your wall as one big antenna. Crown Harbor is not in a rural area and won't be that disconnected. In the HF range, moving to the water's edge would be even more beneficial, (maybe 1000 miles vs 100) but is probably not necessary. Just for the record, I could make a case that the suggested wording of the revision, where it says something to the affect of "for the purpose of communicating in emergency situations," would only allow Ron to transmit in a declared emergency — not whenever he feels like it. I don't think that was the intent or what he's looking for, but it kind of reads that way.

  • Q: I have noticed that my TV signal goes off a few times each week. Might this be due to the ham radio interference by one of our residences on Kings Road?

    A: That is possible. The issue has been raised by at least one other community member. When the issue is put to a vote by the community, I trust that the Board will present both pros and cons of having the Ham radio aid our community in times of need.

  • Radio Communications 101 Write-up Submitted to the Board

    In the late 1880's, Heinrich Hertz established the existence of electromagnetic radiation. Simply put, he proved that, when electrical current flows through a conductor (an object capable of conducting electricity such as copper, silver, gold, steel, aluminum, etc.), that current flow causes an electromagnetic field to emanate radially outward (like the spokes of a bicycle wheel) from the conductor, perpendicular to the flow of current. That field will travel through the atmosphere and space for miles. Conversely, when the electromagnetic field passes across another conductor, it will cause a similar current to flow in the second conductor. This is the basis of radio communications. A transmitter forces a current through an antenna to develop an electromagnetic field. A receiver elsewhere in the world sets up a receiving antenna to catch part of that electromagnetic field and cause a similar current to flow through the receiving antenna. By sensing that current, the receiver reproduces the signal sent by the original transmitter. This is the intended result of radio communications.

    However, there are also non-intended results of this process. If the electromagnetic field falls on a conductor that is not intended to be an antenna, the current is still created. This unintended current is referred to as electromagnetic interference (EMI) and may cause problems in other electrical devices and systems. The susceptibility of a conductor to the induced current depends on the frequency (or wavelength) of the signal and the length of the conductor. Very High Frequency (VHF) and Ultra High Frequency (UHF) signals will interfere with smaller conductors like connections and elements in an electronic circuit (like the circuit board in your TV). Due to their longer wavelength, High Frequency (HF) signals are more compatible with longer conducting objects.

    Q: How does this relate to Crown Harbor?

    A: Our discussion here relates to authorizing the installation and operation of a "Ham" radio antenna on a building in our community. This would provide an improvement to the operator's radio communications, above the existing car-mounted system. Concern of VHF and UHF signals interfering with electronics in our homes was offset by the fact that the proposed transmitter does not operate in those ranges. It would operate in the HF range. Small electronic parts are not a major concern. However, as noted above, the HF signal is more likely to induce a current in large, longer metal objects like the aluminum poles holding up our streetlights, the sheet metal exhaust tube from each of our fireplaces, and possibly the wrought iron fences around our property. Even though the current flows in these items, they are not likely to cause any problem to us or our equipment. However, there is another major system of conducting metal in our community. That is the copper wires that make up our electrical systems in our homes. This system in intended to carry a 60-cycle current at 120 volts. Our radios, televisions, and computers expect to see exactly that. When an outside influence, like HF Radio transmissions superimposes an additional signal on the power system, those unwanted signals (often called chatter) are carried throughout the system to any appliance plugged into an electrical outlet. This is called conducted EMI because the electromagnetic interference is conducted into the appliances through the power cord. Things like refrigerators, toasters, light bulbs, fans, and such don't care. However, more sophisticated electronics systems can be less tolerant of these interferences. You may hear chatter as static or buzzing in your radio or TV sound; it may appear as a glitch in your TV picture; it can also interrupt some electronic control systems.

    Q: Does your cheap electronic clock sporadically gain time? Does the channel or volume of your radio or TV change unexpectedly? Does the remote-control unit for your garage door opener suddenly stop working and require re-programming?

    A: These are the sort of electronic interruptions that could result from HF Interference in the power system. Not long ago, we were warned to use surge protectors on our electronics equipment. Now we don't hear it as much. Newer digital systems like radios and TVs, have an over-voltage protection circuit built in to protect the electronics from these kinds of interferences. If the added signal on the 120-volt circuit pushes that voltage beyond a pre-set limit (say 127 volts), the protection circuit will overheat and shut the TV off. The TV will remain inoperable until the protection circuit cools down. Once it does, you'll be able to turn it back on. We've already had reports of this happening in the neighborhood.

    As we consider a change to the CC&Rs to allow installation of a permanent antenna to improve the efficiency of radio transmission above that of the existing car mounted antenna, we must also consider how that improved radiation could affect systems in our homes. We already see some issues around the neighborhood that could easily be related to the existing transmissions. Improving that radiation can only increase the likelihood of electromagnetic interference in our homes and electronics systems.

  • I support all of these amendments. I am particularly interested to see that amendment 2 (being careful not to call it the second amendment!) can afford residents the ability to contact loved ones even when cell phones and internet are down due to an earthquake. The proposed antenna is a small circular wire ring (30 inches or so diameter) that has no or very minimal aesthetic impact.... not some monstrosity 20 feet tall with wire stays as some might imagine. I am also assured after my own research that there will be no impact on tv or radio signals or any kind of signal leakage that could affect people or birds. think it is a great idea.
    Bernie Clark

  • I'm in favor of all 4 amendments. I'm particularly excited about changing the CC&Rs to allow the antennae for the short wave radio. As a member of the CERT team, this component would give us access to the outside world including emergency services in the likely event of a catastrophic earthquake.
    Ellen Marshall

  • I am in favor of all four amendments.

  • If the amendment is merely to correct the typographical error that refers to a non-existent subsection, (a) (ii) (b), by removing the (b) —and does not alter the original protection and previous interpretation of the Grandfather Clause— it is acceptable and we approve.
    Lisa and Martin Goldberg

  • I am neutral on the issue. I have an amateur radio license. It is worth noting that a close friend is alive today only because the Ham radio network arranged for life saving medical treatment and rescue.

  • If this antenna would be beneficial to the CH community in times of disaster, I would vote for it as long as this permission could be revoked by the CH Board if it causes problems to CH residents.

  • The Hornet Radio Club already operates more than one transmitter with LOS to and thru Crown Harbor!

  • Argument Against Amendment #2 of Crown Harbor CC&Rs

    When the deployment of a visible outdoor radio antenna on the upstairs "walk-out patio" of the requesting resident was brought up by CERT at an HOA Board Meeting several months ago, it was purported that such a radio antenna which would be visible to residents, was to be erected or deployed only when and during the period that Crown Harbor experiences a total loss of electric power and communication due to a catastrophic event in our community. Then the CERT language originally stated "in times of local disaster." The latest version says "installation of an antenna for use in case of emergency." This loosely written amendment would permit the resident, an amateur radio operator, to immediately erect and use an outdoor short-wave type radio antenna which would be clearly visible to residents in Crown Harbor. This amendment places no restrictions on the physical aspects of an antenna, it is said to be about 6 feet in height, but as written, it could be a 20 foot antenna necessitating guide wires etc. for support. The resident currently has and uses a large short-wave type radio antenna affixed to his automobile, which could be used as a mobile communication radio at time of and during a power outage type emergency. Since this viable alternative exists for such emergencies, it negates the need for this additional visible outside radio antenna on his patio.

    In essence, this amendment merely permits a resident to immediately install a visible antenna which upgrades and enhances his hobby.

    There may be additional radio frequency issues that affect neighbors or residents as indicated in other resident comments. We live nearby the requestor's residence and have experienced unexpected difficulties with our television reception. During at least the past 4 months, we have experienced many unexplained random outages or screen freezes while watching a nearly new high end brand name television receiver. The most recent involved a 24 hour video outage and hours on the phone with Comcast Tech Support. The only solution to our problem was return the set-top box to Comcast and exchange for a new one. If a more powerful transmitter is to be used with a new outdoor short-wave antenna, it stands to reason that it could cause more serious radio frequency or electronic interference with existing televisions or electronic devices.

    There is no proven need for this amendment, and there is an alternative means to achieve the communications goal, therefore I do not support or approve of this amendment. I say vote NO on this CC&R Amendment.

    Bill Moore
    541 Kings Rd

  • Bill,
    I agree with you. I didn't know all this. It's too bad that we didn't hear your arguments at our Board meeting. I wonder what the CERT committee says to this?

  • Crown Harbor Community,
    As president of your association, I would like to address some comments in Bill Moore's arguments opposing Amendment 2 that could reflect poorly on the judgement and actions of both CERT and the HOA board of directors. Bill suggests that CERT attempted to convince the board that the antenna would be erected and deployed only during periods of local emergency. That was not the case. It was clear from the start that if the board and the community approved the amendment, the antenna would be erected and deployed soon afterward and would serve to enhance the experience of the radio operator. The, so called, "loosely written" amendment does not inadvertently permit personal use by the radio operator, it takes that for granted, and simply states that the purpose of allowing this exception to the existing prohibition is to provide the community with digital communication in times of emergency.
    Ed Stavnezer, President
    Crown Harbor Board of Directors

  • In addition, no one wants a 20-foot monstrosity in the complex. I am under the impression that any antenna would be subject to the Design Review Committee. The amendment does not say that, but I assume the issue is covered by other parts of the CC&Rs. I am under the impression that the language supplied by the lawyers is to remove the "no antennas" restriction. To me, the issue is if one accepts or rejects the science that claims that Ham radio operations do not interfere with our home devices.
    Scott Sheppard

  • I hesitate to stick my nose in here, but...

    I'm wondering if we're really ready to vote on this. Some people seem concerned that the antenna will have an impact on our wifi/cable connections, but none of us really know. Sadly, outages and blips are fairly common in Alameda, and Comcast is not the most reliable provider in the world. If a new cable box solved the problem, does that mean the radio wasn't the cause? I don't think we know. Is it possible to track some of the issues people have so that we're voting with a little more information?

    Personally, I'd like to see Ron be able to upgrade/continue with his hobby, and even though I live right across the street I've never had any huge issues with my connections. The occasional screen freeze that necessitates a reboot — but that happens to everyone I know.

    I'm growing a little concerned about the tone here and thinking that perhaps the people most concerned should meet for an actual presentation/ conversation? Email isn't the best method of communication among a large group. I understand that there has been some talking at a meeting already, but clearly not all interested parties participated.

    Just my thoughts--
    Cheryll Linthicum.

  • That might be a good idea. Since we have not received ballots yet it could be squeezed in before the annual meeting. I do not know how many people would show up, but it would let people ask questions.
    Dave Eck

  • CH:
    I am definitely not the person to make any judgement on anything to do with electronics equipment. Hell, I have to call my granddaughter to figure out my computer. However, I would like to add that personally I think the "emergency situations" we WILL have at some time in the future, i.e., earthquake, storms, etc. a radio system of some type would certainly be extremely useful in those times. As we all know we live on an island making it difficult for emergency and rescue personnel to provide a timely response to us, not to mention the other vulnerable areas in the City. Having some type of connection with the outside world would be advantageous. As emergency agencies have indicated that each and every one of us should be equipped and able to survive on our own for a minimum of four days. If the antenna is unobtrusive and does not interfere with residents TV's, etc. I have no problem. The benefits of having a ham operator certainly would be an advantage for all of us.
    Burny Matthews
    Safety Committee, Chair

  • As a Libertarian, I'm in favor of allowing the radio antenna, not just for emergencies, but for the member to pursue the enjoyment of his hobby. I have enough of a background in science to know that the frequencies used would not interfere with TV, radio, cell phone or other public transmissions (In spite of the fact that Lucille Ball could pick up radio transmissions in her dental fillings). Also, I don't think that the antenna would be any more unsightly than some of the umbrellas I've seen. I've lived in an overregulated community before (Irvine, CA) and was happy to leave. I approve all the proposed amendments to the CC&Rs.
    Tim Chambers

  • As far as CERT goes, we see the value of what a Ham radio brings. When we got the first complaint from Gene McDermott, I offered to drop our request. Ed also saw the value in what Ron is offering to provide so he suggested that we see it through. So the facts are:

    1. The dish is a 3-foot circle on a 6-foot post.
    2. The Design Review Committee approved the antenna request from an aesthetic and view obstruction perspective.
    3. Ham radio is indeed Ron's hobby.
    4. Ron operates a Ham radio now, which is not forbidden by the CC&Rs. The antenna is inside his unit.
    5. Through CERT sees the value, Design Review has approved, and the Board President thinks it's a good idea, the CC&Rs forbid it.
    6. To allow it, we must change the CC&Rs. The lawyers gave us the suggested wording.
    7. Ron is willing to spend ~$7000 of his own money (e.g., generator, antenna) to advance his hobby.

    The association just has to decide if we want to change the CC&Rs so that he can do so, and it turn, we leverage his investment to community benefit so that we can send messages (i.e., emails) that we can't do now. While it is true that the antenna will allow Ron to also receive far-away messages, one could argue that we can do that in other ways such as the NOAA radios that Radio & Logistics CERT members have in their backpacks.

    It's really not a question of "if" we're going to have another earthquake. We will. The $6.2B Oakland part of the Bay Bridge is a testament to that fact. We just need to decide if we believe that the radio transmissions would interfere with our electrical devices. If people believe that, they should vote No. If people don't believe that, they should vote Yes. As always, I remain neutral on these issues.

    Scott Sheppard,
    CERT Committee Chairperson

  • Q: Is there any issue regarding noise from the generator and its impact on neighbors?
    A: The generator would only be used during an emergency, when there is no electricity. At all other times, Ron's Ham radio plugs into the wall like everything else. The generator allows Ron to broadcast and receive even when there is no electricity.

  • You bring up some valid points. I will try to address them. The language of the amendment only allows a homeowner to obtain an exception to the prohibition of antennas for the purpose of providing communications to HOA members in times of emergency. It further states that the exception can only be granted to a licensed Ham operator by the HOA board of directors with review by both the CERT and design review committees. There is no language related to a generator but there would be no need of one unless there is a power outage. That is, the radio will normally use standard household electrical power. There is no language related to the size or design of the antenna but the type of antenna is subject to approval by the design review committee and the board of directors.

    I hope this alleviates some of your concerns.

    Ed Stavnezer, President
    Crown Harbor HOA Board of Directors

  • It might be worth qualifying that it isn't a solid dish, per se.... it is a wire ring on a 6 ft post.

  • I support facilitating emergency communication services in Crown Harbor. However, as a designer of wireless equipment, I understand the plurality of issues that can arise with the installation and operation of amateur radio equipment in a residential community. I have expressed these concerns to Ed. I have reviewed the specific text of the currently proposed amendment 2  Section 3.4(j) of Article III). The attached email only summarizes the amendment. I propose an amendment to the currently proposed amendment 2 to allow only one radio antenna exception at any point in time. Possible language for this amendment may be:
    "The board of directors may grant only one (1) exception to this rule during any period of time."
    Please consider this amendment to the currently proposed Amendment 2 (Section 3.4(j) of Article III).
    Regards, Don Gibson, (previously at) 1308 Crown Dr

© 2018 Crown Harbor Association. All rights reserved. Privacy policy. Search. Contact us.