iBeth: HOA Proposing Good Changes

A letter from the homeowner's association is rarely good, but this time, the thick envelope may have brought some good news. The board is proposing changes to our CCRs (Covenants, Codes, & Restrictions) that seem basically worthwhile.

Storage sheds must be pre-approved, but the ARC shall not withhold consent if the shed has a height of 8 ft. or lower, is constructed in the backyard of a fenced lot, and is maintained in good condition. Previously, sheds were forbidden--and I can attest to the difficulty of fitting minimal lawn equipment plus two cars into our small-ish garage. Fortunately, we're able to store the kids' bikes with their grandparents across the street. Otherwise, we'd become one of the neighbors who park on the driveway instead of in the garage.
Renewable energy devices must be pre-approved, but the ARC shall not withhold consent if the devices meet county codes, don't encroach on others' property, don't pose a safety hazard, and are maintained in good condition. ARC restrictions can't impair the effective operation of the device. This amendment essentially brings our CCRs into conformance with state law. Previously, the CCRs illegally forbade all such devices.
Clotheslines are included in the statutes that govern other renewable energy devices, but another proposed amendment addresses them separately. Clotheslines must be preapproved, but the ARC shall not withhold approval if such clotheslines don't exceed 6 ft high and are placed in the backyard of a fenced lot. These restrictions aren't likely to impair the functioning of the clothesline, so they are acceptable (though it would be handier for most people to put a clothesline on the side of the house, since laundry machines are often in the garage). The amendment also announces "No clothing, bedding, or laundry shall be hung over or in windows, doors, walks, fences, or other supports if the same are visible from the street," which I think is sort of funny; does the hoa plan to sue me if I drape a beach towel over my fence? The towel would be gone before they got the atty bill. Perhaps the management company knows of some horrible scofflaw who flouted this rule.
The hoa is, unfortunately, proposing to restrict paint color. This proposed amendment is the only one that decreases homeowner rights, and it offers no compenating benefit: there's no evidence that paint color affects property values in any way whatsoever. Rather than dictating colors, a more sensible plan would be to dictate the number and placement of colors, e.g., homes can have up to three different paint colors, and the garage, front door, eaves, trim, and walls must all be painted solid colors. That would eliminate the problem of paisley homes (which I don't mind, but I know some people do), while still allowing self-expression. Right now, we have some great colors: a terrific cerulean blue, a wonderful lemon/lime combo, a great barn red. I'd hate to seem them replaced by rows of identical beige homes. (Cue a chorus of "Little Boxes" by Malvina Reynolds). Even our original builders were not so restrictive; one house in a prominent location was painted pink by the builder, and I do mean pink: solid bubblegum everywhere that paint could be applied. Still, this proposed amendment is not as procrustean as it might be. All colors must be pre-approved, but the ARC shall not withhold consent if the sought color is included in their "color book." They didn't send out the color book--maybe it's not all beige, though I wouldn't bet on that. Still, our paint (green, the color of freedom) is holding up pretty well, so we shouldn't have to deal with the color book for a few years more at least.

A few surprise omissions from the proposal:

Nothing about satellite dishes. Currently our CCRs illegally forbid them, contrary to FCC regulation. But the ARC could legally issue guidelines on their placement, as long as those guidelines don't impair reception. I don't mind seeing the dishes, but I know from experience that they are a popular source of complaint. If guidelines were clarified, maybe complaints would lessen. Plus if we're bringing the CCRs into compliance with state statutes, why not comply with federal regulations, too?
Nothing about basketball hoops. We don't have any place for older kids to play, and traffic makes biking away from the neighborhood dangerous. Courting teen couples just drape themselves languidly over the little kids' playground equipment, but that's hardly the ideal recreational solution. Yet our CCRs forbid basketball hoops. Our current hoa president believes (and I agree) that it's ridiculous to ban these hoops when there is no alternative and no evidence that the hoops affect property values. I'm a bit surprised that she didn't propose an amendment to this rule, too.
Nothing about the quorum. It's almost impossible to inspire a supermajority to vote on anything as our CCRs require. We managed once, during our tree campaign, but that took weeks of effort by a team of people. Management companies now recommend that associations lower their quorum requirements because without a quorum, business cannot legally be transacted. For example, to the best of my knowledge, our hoa has never had a quorum at any annual meeting, which means that board members have never been appropriately elected by the homeowners. Still, I wouldn't have supported a quorum change. I'd rather have a weak hoa than a small group of homeowners tellng everyone else how to live.

But hey, who worries about a weak hoa when this board is behaving so sensibly? Given that every hoa is just one election away from disaster, this board definitely gets my vote. Hats off to them.

Comments

In our Owners Corporation, we also require a quorum of over 50%, which we never reach. We have the following rule:
"The annual general meeting can still go ahead without a quorum but it can only make ‘interim decisions’.
The owners corporation can act on interim decisions after 29 days only if:
• no petition of owners representing 25% of the total lot entitlements has been received; or
• no notice of a special general meeting has been received."
No decisions made the AGM have ever been challenged, because those who are too apathetic to attend the meeting or arrange a proxy, are unlikely to to put together the required petition or call a special general meeting to protest.

Posted by: Altissima | December 14, 2008 at 03:00 AM