Change to rule on when an ARC request form is required

Our current rules state that an ARC request form is required to any change made to the exterior of a home that deviates from the original design or from the last approved state. It explains that repairs do not require ARC approval but if there is any doubt an ARC for should be submitted just in case. I believe this rule is pretty common in most communities.

Tonight our board is voting to change this rule. They would like to remove the part about repairs/original design/approved state. Essentially anything you do to the outside of a home needs approval - even if you are just fixing something. Our board is concerned about different homeowner's interpretation of what a "change" is. An example would be roof shingles that a homeowner thinks is the same as the original, but really isn’t. The fear is that the homeowner would then be forced to scrap the roof and put a compliant roof up.

I understand this concern, but I am so vehemently opposed to this proposed rule change. I don't think that this rule change will do anything to address the concern. People who do not submit ARC forms do not do so because they are aware of the current rule and think they are not making a change - they do so because they have no idea what an ARC form is or they simply cannot be bothered.

I think introducing this change to the rules makes for a rule that is impossible to enforce, and impossible to punish. How can a board possibly keep track of things done to the outside of a home if it does not result in a change? Then, for the case where a board member notices that a repair was made, how do you address it? For instance, I replaced some broken pickets on my deck railing (same wood, same color, same everything). What would happen to me if this was discovered? Would I be forced to put the broken pickets back up?

I am 100% in favor of the ARC approval process, but I think this rule change is overkill. I think homeowners have to be held accountable at some level. I think the community would be better served if our board made it clear that ARC approvals are needed for changes, and if a homeowner is not sure if what they are doing is a change they should submit an ARC form to be sure (especially for something that is expensive). The homeowners should be given examples of people that were forced to remove costly changes because an ARC form was not submitted.

Sorry for the long post. If you made it this far I would love to hear opinions on this.

Thanks

Susan,

Thanks for your response.

Communication with homeowners is not an issue.

I was wondering what people think of striking the rule that says an ARC form is not needed for repairs/replacements. For example, a neighbor of mine had a downspout come down. She would be required to submit an ARC form before this could be repaired.

I don't see how it is possible to manage and enforce that homeowners submit an ARC form and wait for approval to restore something back to an approved state.

Tim,

Thanks - that is exactly how our rules are right now (and I believe most HOAs).

Our board president is on a bit of a crusade to change this rule. She feels that it is to "grey" to leave it up to the home owner to decide whether they are "changing" something or keeping it the same (maybe a front house lantern is close to the original, but not close enough).

I understand this concern - especially when it comes to an expensive action like replacing a roof. However, I don't think the best solution is to just say anything that you do needs an ARC form and approval. I think this is a rule that will be impossible to enforce. Nobody will adhere to it, and there will be no ramifications if they don't (do we force them to re-brake the thing that was fixed).

I pointed out that we found approx 200 violations in our last inspection and we would therefore expect 200 ARC forms to be submitted. The board agreed that this would be unmanageable so they decided to add a caveat that if a violation letter is sent out than an ARC form is not needed. I pointed out that this would mean that anyone who got one of our most common violations "power was+stain or replace deck" could rebuild their deck without submitting an ARC app. This caused even more confusion and doubt and the discussion as tabled for next meeting.

In my opinion the way to best handle it is to be very explicit and explain to homeowners that the board is the one that will decided it something was "changed" or not and if there is any doubt an ARC form should be submitted to be sure. Then, follow through for any case where someone does not get approval for an external change. I just hate the idea of making rules that cannot be enforced.

It is not just a roof - the concern is with everything and anything. A storm door, a front lantern, decks (replacement of broken weathered wood), window grids, door kicker plates, gutters/downspouts, front stairs etc. Any external element that you can think of.

Dorthy,

The rule change would require a majority vote of the board, not a 2/3 affirmative vote from the whole community. Our county registered by-laws make no mention of an ARC review form, so this change is to a rule that was added to "clarify/complement" the CCRs.

Terry - i am still going to say that if the ARC provides a list of "pre-approved" replacement guidelines for such things as paint, eavestroughs, shingles, kickplates, lanterns, etc. then your ARC will not be burdened with approving simple replacement issues. You can list the store, the color and even the product number OR have a number they can call for that information.

THEN your ARC can concentrate on NEW contruction or alterations, which is probably what the CCRs intended.

Please provide the verbiage of your CCRs that demand such micro-managing of overseeiing replacement items.

Susan,
So, these architectural rules ARE in your CC&R's. The review form is complementary of the "written" clause. BUT, to REMOVE this part of the covenant, "Repair or replacement of damaged items can be done WITHOUT written approval provided there is no change from the original design of the builder, or as previously approved by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC)." to its exact opposite, as in establishing a new one that is its exact opposite, now WITH approval to get these types of repairs, replacements reviewed, approved or disapproved by the ARC, is clearly changing the intent of that covenant. This is in fact "amending" this covenant, not complementing nor clarifying it, but changing this part of it entirely. Surely, all amendments to your CC&R's require association vote -- did you say 2/3? And there is protocol for this amendment process as well. Formal proposals must be constructed, disseminated to the HOA, discussed at an open association meeting and voted on. Your Board seems alarmingly obtuse on this. I don't know how big your HOA is, but I suspect you would have many allies and supporters among the members to keep this from happening, especially since it legally CAN'T happen. This is an issue that seems necessary to get loud about.

Dorothy

Terry,
Yes, I get that this rule was adopted after the CC&R's, I'm assuming to aid in the facilitation, clarification and enforcement of the ORIGINAL covenant that addresses external alterations, which is why it did not need the 2/3 vote. Which means, according to your attorney, that the intent of the original covenant was NOT compromised. But now it WILL BE if a new rule is made in direct opposition of the adopted rule, which is ONLY an extension of the original covenant. I'm thinking the Board may be trying to pull one over on y'all by saying they are just changing the adopted rule, the adoption of which did not need the 2/3 vote, so the change won't either. Not so fast.

I think you know in your gut that this proposed direction is a recipe for mischief and a virtual impossibility to enforce. You are not missing anything. What do the other homeowners think? But, Terry, before anyone can even consider those objections, the first issue that must be addressed, I'm sorry to say, IS the legality of the action. That has to be settled first.

So you have three things: 1) the original covenant, 2) the adopted rule attached to the original covenant which did not change the intent of the covenant, according to your attorney, hence, no mention and inclusion in the CC&R's and no amendment process, just a Rule, and 3) a proposed rule that MUST change the intent of the original covenant, by the very fact that it moves everyone from NOT HAVING to do something to HAVING to do something. Number 2, quite frankly, is irrelevant. What IS relevant is how Number 3 will affect Number 1.

Dorothy

Larry - If I were to point this out then they would just add a "clause" that says you can make repairs without approvals if there is a safety concern. Every time I point out a flaw or ramification (of which there are many) the president of our HOA does her best to re-word/add to the rule to account for the flaw/ramification.

I pointed out that we need to expect 200+ ARC forms for the 200+ violations we found in our Summer inspections. The response - a change to the rule - "if your are repairing something based on a violation letter" then no ARC form is needed. I pointed out that we often send violations letters that say "Powerwash or replace deck." So that would mean someone could replace their deck without an ARC form.

Larry...i think we all get so caught up in the "rules" that we fail to apply the prudent person test. I would highly doubt that a court would penalize you for replacing a rotten deck board when you viewed it as a potentially dangerous situation and rightfully so.

Charles,

So you mean something in the violation letter like "Powerwash or replace weathered deck material. Submit an ARC application if replacing." I assume that is what you are getting at?

What about cases where there was no violation letter? I don't thik the issue can be goverened by what is written in a violation letter as more often then not there will be no violation letter. I think there needs to be a rule that is on record that determines whether you do or do not ARC approval to replace a damaged deck board.

I pointed out that we need to expect 200+ ARC forms for the 200+ violations we found in our summer inspections. The response - a change to the rule - "if you are repairing something based on a violation letter" then no ARC form is needed. I pointed out that we often send violations letters that say "Power, wash or replace deck." So that would mean someone could replace their deck without an ARC form.

So, now after reading all the above, the last paragraph has been stated a couple of times. And this seems to be the emphasis you are placing on the thread. As I understand it, if an owner gets a violation letter, then the wording in the letter basically says, if you repair this, an ARC form does not need to be submitted. But, you are not saying, if you make a repair, it must be repaired back (as close as possible) to the original condition with like material. If this cannot be done, then the owner needs to submit an ARC form requesting and explaining the change.
I am saying, if this is what you mean, then state that in the CCR violation letter. Don’t change the rule, explain and educate what you wish to be done in the violation letter.

Charles,

I probably made things unclear.

By just stating what is expected in the violation letter, it leaves out how to convey what is expected for cases where there is no violation letter. If you decide to fix a broken board on your deck that was never mentioned in a violation letter are you required to submit an ARC form? There has to be a rule that covers this. The current rule says that an ARC form is not needed. The proposal is to change the rule to say that an ARC form is needed even for repairs (and I am opposed to this change).

Brad, What I was trying to say was that a prudent person would replace the rotten board but the HOA is interjecting itself into the situation to prevent the owner from acting prudently. By interferring, the liability shifts from the homeowner to the HOA amd its committe members.