Not so fast, everyone.
A California appeals court case,
Major v. Miraverde Homeowners Association, decided against the HOA and it's dual use rule that excluded the owners from the common areas while their elderly mother occupied the condo. As the court referenced decisions in Florida that are similar in their written Opinion, it may not be a slam dunk that Doris is in the wrong.
The decision rested on two parts. The first was that the CC&Rs explicitly stated that owners could not transfer their interests or easement of enjoyment unless they sold their unit. The second part is more interesting and also goes to the question from Doris:
Furthermore, the Association's rules exclude the Rasmussens from the common areas while simultaneously charging them a fee for the common areas' use and improvements. If the Rasmussens were to fail to pay their annual or special assessments, the Association would have the right to charge interest, bring an action at law, or foreclose the lien upon the condominium. In return for the annual or special assessment fees, the Rasmussens, as nonresident members, would receive nothing. To de facto terminate the Rasmussens' right would impose a substantial obligation upon the Rasmussens while imposing no obligation at all on the Association. Such an illusory agreement would be not enforceable.
Doris stated that there is nothing in the documents that rule out dual use. Keep in mind that she didn't ask for opinions on the ethics of using the dumpster, just if anyone knew the law pertaining to her question.