Local Municipal Code vs HOA CCR's ?

Our local municipal code states: "In any residential zone temporary signage shall be allowed for each and every lot. This signage shall not be restricted by content, but is usually and customarily used to advertise real estate sales, political or ideological positions, garage sales, home construction or remodeling, etc."

Our CCR's state: "No signs shall be erected or maintained on any Lot except that not more than one "For Sale" sign placed by the Owner, Declarant or by a licensed Real Estate agent, consistent with control controlling governmental ordinances, may be temporarily display on any Lot. This restriction shall not prohibit the temporary placement of "political" signs on any Lot by an Owner.

Problem is we have a builder/remodeler who wants to advertise his business while working on an owners lot. Residents have complained.

Does the HOA have more restrictive authority than the local municipal code. Or does the municipal code over-ride the HOA's CCR's here?

It probably depends on how the municipal code is written. Is there any text containing "nothwithstanding" ahead of the text you quoted?

It occurs to me that the remodeler is unlikely to get business from the nearby residents he is annoying.

municipal code trumps the CCRs

code says "..shall be allowed"

Robert,

Welcome to the forum.

The order of precedence is:

Federal Law
Federal Regulations
State Law
State Regulations
County Code
City Ordinances
PLAT
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
Articles of Incorporation (if the Association is incorporated - most are)
Bylaws
Resolutions (formal policies adopted by the Board, example architectural guidelines)

The order of precedence is only important when there is a conflict between two documents. When a conflict exists, the higher precedence document is the one that must be complied with (i.e. it controls). However, it is also common that a higher document may defer control to the lower document (which is why Fred made the comment he did).

As JohnC pointed out, a lower document can be more restrictive than a higher document. Using his example of fences, if County code only authorized 4 foot high fences and the CC&Rs said you could have an 8 foot fence, this would be a conflict. As the 8 foot high fence would be taller than the higher document allowed. However, if the County allowed 8 foot fences and the CC&Rs limited it to 4, there is no conflict as the 4 foot fence complies with the 8 foot limit set by the County.

As JohnB pointed out, there can be different interpretations of the documents. When this occurs, a third party (legal advice, mediator, courts) is used to decide which interpretation is correct.

Based on my experience, I have to agree with JohnC that the CC&Rs can be more restrictive without causing a conflict.

As for your specific issue, and I am not an attorney nor do I work in the legal profession, the Association would likely win regarding restricting most signage. The one restriction that the Association may lose would be by prohibiting political signs.

You didn't define if you were the contractor wanting to display your sign, the member who is having the contractor do work on your property, a member of the Association who doesn't want the sign or a member of the Board who has to deal with the complaints. Therefore, depending on who you are, my advice would be as follows:

If you are the contractor: I'd remove the sign as I wouldn't want to stir the ire of neighbors who may be potential customers. Your vehicles will probably give you enough advertising while you are on the job site.

If you are the member having work done: I'd ask myself if this is the fight I want to have with my Association. I'd be more concerned that the contractor does a good job then providing free advertising for them. My satisfaction and word of mouth would likely be better advertising for the company and I'd save any fight with the Association for something that affects me more directly than a contractor sign. However, if this is the issue you wish to fight, then you can bring the issue to the Board by using what JohnB offered and ask that they seek a legal opinion if a conflict exists (however, this won't force the Board to seek such an opinion). You could also seek the legal opinion yourself (at your cost) to see if JohnB's opinion is valid or not prior to deciding to fight the issue with your Board.

If you are the neighbor: If it were me, I'd ask myself if I really wanted to cause an issue between my neighbor and I for such a minor issue that will likely go away when the work is done. However, you raise a valid point that the CC&Rs should be complied with. If this issue bothers you (be it the sign itself or simply the principal of the issue) I'd try discussing the issue with the neighbor first. If that doesn't work, then bring the issue to the Board.

If you are a member of the Board trying to resolve the complaints: If the Board believes that their is a conflict between the documents, you may want to seek legal advice to determine if a conflict between the documents exist. To address the issue for the long term, you may want to propose an amendment to try and remove any potential conflict. Carol had offered what their documents say. I've attached our rules on signs as another example.

Hope this helps,

Tim

I still say, per my earlier post, that someone needs to review the OR statutes about such matters

if the CCRs banning the signage were ORIGINAL to the development they would follow the law and be legally enforceable

as usual lately the OP did NOT post all the info available

The city says a person may put up a sign and not run afoul of the city zoning rules. The city does not require anyone to put up a sign. The city apparently does not prohibit associations from adopting more restrictive covenants.

Those who purchased in your development agreed that only "For Sale" and temporary political signs could be put up. Since the city neither requires the sign the contractor wants to put up nor does the city prevent you from restricting it, your covenants rule.

Personally, however, I think the neighbors have entirely too much time on their hands if they find it necessary to complain about a contractor's sign.

Totally agree about the busy-body old coot neighbors.

The law says I shall be allowed to xxxxxxxxx.

If a 'no sign' RESTRICTION is in the CCRs then I have contracted not to xxxxxxxx.

The law says I may xxxxxxxxx.

A no xxxxxxxx rule may be made by the BOD.

SHALL = positive right, waivable by contract.

MAY = permissive right, cancellable by directive.

This type of ka-ka is why legislators find the need to pass laws regarding flying the flag, solar energy, water friendly landscaping, etc.

If a law says SHALL w/o other modification (such as: unless xxx says differently) it becomes the PRIMARY governing document.

MAY opens up a legal 'can-o-worms'.

ps. many states have ruled that, under common law, covenants may never be made 'more restrictive' against existing contract holders - under common law a written contract must be changed by both/all parties UNANIMOUSLY

majority rule was Jefferson and Madison's worst nightmare ~ hence the REPUBLIC under which a contract was INVIOLATE (c covenant)

That is my understanding of what the OP posted their CC&Rs said.

Since the CC&Rs allow signs a & b but is silent about signs c,d,e Then there was an intention to exclude signs c,d&e (which the owner contractually agreed to).

TimB4,

as per the OP:



the OP's CCRs are not silent about any signs

however

READ THE BOLD SECTION

does this phrase modify the no signs or merely the for sale clause ?

~ talk about confusing wording ~

whether plain English or legalese this is SO vague that it would, imo, be unenforceable

since government says 'shall be allowed' ?

JohnB,

It's obvious you and I disagree on this issue. You are likely not going to change my mind any more than I will be able to change yours.

I took the time to locate the document that may or may not be from the OP's town. If it is, that document specifies that a division of the government can answer questions regarding the ordinance. I recommended that the OP does this as this would be the best option for the OP.