How do you interpert the following covenant statement...

Started by MitchelT • 15 replies • 1516 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

MitchelT (Colorado)
Posts: 7

Posted:

Our neighborhood Covenants state the following:

**************************
Except as may otherwise be permitted by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC), no exterior radio antenna, television antenna, or other antenna, satellite dish, or audio or visual reception device of any type shall be placed, erected or maintained on the Properties, except inside a residence or otherwise concealed from view; provided, however, that any such devices may be erected or installed by the Declarant during its sales or construction within the Properties.
**************************

The way I read this is that if the Architectural Review Committee grants someone permission to install a security camera then the rest of the paragraph does not apply and the rules were followed and none were broken.

How do you read it?

Homeowner A wanted the cameras, homeonwer B is now way upset and says the ARC/Board violated the covenants. They of course refuse to listen to reason and are choosing to read past the first 11 words and start the paragraph with the word NO.

I don't know what else we can say to homeowner B to calm them down. My guess is they are going to hire a lawyer and sue us?

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059

Posted:

I'm reading it the same way - that they are prohibited unless approved by the ARC.

Now, if the ARC approves one request, they should approve all similar requests or they may be opening up the Association for possible litigation.

If I was on the committee, I would ask Homeowner B why they are upset. Perhaps A and B are neighbors and homeowner B feels their privacy is being invaded. The committee should also make sure that the application specifies where and what the cameras will be focused onto.

Just because Homeowner A was authorized to have cameras, they may not point them onto any property that their is an expectation of privacy. Examples would be the enclosed rear yard or into a window.

If a homeowner does own cameras, they should take extra care to make sure that the cameras are only pointing inside their own property or onto the public street. Otherwise, they could face litigation.

Hope this helps,

Tim

MikeN4 (South Carolina)
Posts: 10

Posted:

Hi MitchelT,

Others here are more learned.

That said, I opine that a "camera" is not in any way an "antenna"
or "audio/visual reception" device and therefore the CCR's have
no control over it.

Best Regards,

Mike.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059

Posted:

Mike,

Your right. I saw how the ARC could approve and jumped to the word cameras in the post.

Based on the language, that section of the CC&Rs would not apply to cameras.

Tim

MitchelT (Colorado)
Posts: 7

Posted:

Tim,

Glad to hear you're reading it the same way.

Homeowner A was required to submit a layout diagram and install all cameras a minimum of 10 inches below the fence line. They are also required to allow the Board a one time visit to see what the cameras are able to record (of course once we leave there is no telling if they adjust anything).

The big problem is Homeowner A and B hate each other and are driving each other crazy. We told them this was the last time the board in getting involved with this bickering.

As fas as being fair, we treat everyone the same...but thanks for pointing that out. ;-)

My gut says Homeowner B will eventually take Homeowner A to court which is fine with us, let the judge decide.

Mitch

MitchelT (Colorado)
Posts: 7

Posted:

Thanks Mike!

It's a stretch, but we felt a camera could fit in the description.

JanetB2 (Colorado)
Posts: 4,219

Posted:

Hi Mitchel:

I would consider a camera a visual reception device because it collects and transmits visual data which an individual can review, save, and draw conclusions regarding what they are viewing. OK guys ... so what am I maybe missing here?

Also, just a heads up to be aware the HOA needs to insure that the Federal Laws are followed regarding any approvals in this area of your documents:

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule

The rule prohibits restrictions that impair a person's ability to install, maintain, or use an antenna covered by the rule. The rule applies to state or local laws or regulations, including zoning, land-use or building regulations, private covenants, homeowners' association rules, condominium or cooperative association restrictions, lease restrictions, or similar restrictions on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user where the user has an ownership or leasehold interest in the property. A restriction impairs if it: (1) unreasonably delays or prevents use of; (2) unreasonably increases the cost of; or (3) precludes a person from receiving or transmitting an acceptable quality signal from an antenna covered under the rule. The rule does not prohibit legitimate safety restrictions or restrictions designed to preserve designated or eligible historic or prehistoric properties, provided the restriction is no more burdensome than necessary to accomplish the safety or preservation purpose.

SteveM9 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 3,699

Posted:

Quote:

How do you read it?

I read it as....No one can install stuff unless the ARC approves it.

That said..... the homeowner with the cameras will probably be sued for something. The HOA didnt really do anything, the homeowner did. In the future, the HOA should only approve camera's like the other poster said.... below the fence line. People should install hidden cameras to avoid all this drama.

SteveM9 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 3,699

Posted:

PS. If your ARC has no rules on installing cameras or antenna's etc, there is no legal reason to deny installation. Maybe its time to create a policy.

KathyR5 (Texas)
Posts: 24

Posted:

Posted By TimB4 on 03/05/2012 8:45 PM
I'm reading it the same way - that they are prohibited unless approved by the ARC.

Now, if the ARC approves one request, they should approve all similar requests or they may be opening up the Association for possible litigation.

I read it the same way, unless approved by the ARC.
We have the following sentence in our Restrictions, "Prior judgements regarding matters of design or aesthetics shall not be deemed binding upon the ARC if the Committee feels that the repetition of such matters will have an adverse affect on the Subdivision."
I believe this would protect us from approving one while not approving another, however, I think out of courtesy everyone should be treated equally.

BrianB (California)
Posts: 2,820

Posted:

I see a camera absolutely as a visual collecting device.. it collects, it sends/transmits... absolutely.
I also see that it CAN be installed with either ARC approval (which it had) OR if it is "screened from view" or "concealed from view" (i can't remember the exact word). So, if my neighbor complained, i would go out and put a decorative cover over it, and tell him to take a long walk off a short street.

MikeN4 (South Carolina)
Posts: 10

Posted:

Forgive me, I'd like to expand upon my first reply...

The word "reception" is what is bothering me.
It explicitly implies a receiver.
By convention and definition and accepted standard of the industry usage, a
camera would not fit into that category.

Consider this... I Googled this exact phrase "audio video reception device"
(without the quotation marks) hoping to find a "regular and reasonable"
explanation and found that my interpretation seems to be still present "at
large" after clicking through to and reading some of the results.

Now, an antenna IS a receiver and I believe that the original intent of the
Covenant was to prevent the rampant installation of bulky, ugly eyesores
that would certainly affect the appearance and value of properties.

Also, I believe, as some others have pointed-out, if the ARC had reviewed
and approved it (as the Covenant dictates) the rules were followed and there
should be no legal repercussions. But alas, there will always be s member
that is unhappy about EVERY little thing...

Regards,

Mike.

MitchelT (Colorado)
Posts: 7

Posted:

Thank you EVERYONE for your responses!

I have to say I kind of agree that a camera is not really a reception device, I think the essence of the paragraph has to do with antenna's and like items.

Either way, they received approval and moved forward.

I guess if the complaining homeowner has a problem with our decision they can take us or the other homeowner to court. As far as we are concerned, no rules were broken.

Thanks,

Mitch

BrianB (California)
Posts: 2,820

Posted:

Just to play devil's advocate, I absolutely believe that a camera has a receiver, or at the very least, is part of an entire system that has one. I am assuming this is a digital or video camera, in which case it transmits the images it gets to some source. In order to transmit, you need to collate first, which is done in a receiver of a type. Then, you transmit to a second receiver (say, a computer, or video screen) by way of wires or cables or radio waves. And although THAT receiver may not be mounted on the outside of a unit, I think the same logic that applies to a satellite dish to TV would apply here: something outside picks up signals and sends them to something somewhere else. If a satellite that receives radiation from space and transmits it to the inside of the house is verbotten, then a camera that receives radiation from near space and does the same would be the same. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck...

Secondly, the phrase behind all the rest "or of any type" greatly broadens and expands the definition of the articles before it, allowing for the 'regulator' to expand the definition pretty wide.

All that said, the owner had ARC permission, so this duck is moot.

MitchelT (Colorado)
Posts: 7

Posted:

Brain...moot it is. ;-)

MitchelT (Colorado)
Posts: 7

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By MitchelT on 03/06/2012 10:24 AM
Brain...moot it is. ;-)

BRIAN! ha!!!

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here