Comprehensive List of Covenant Violations

I have been asked by our association to develop a comprehensive list of violations with a cure timeframe. We have the re-written our violation letters and are ready to implement, however I would like to solicit information of violations that other HOA's use. I want to be able to publish on our web site the list so that homeowners know what is expected from each and everyone.

Any input would be appreciated.

Thank you

JerryH8

Jerry

One thing to be considered is repeated violations but not always a successive one. As an example, a trash barrel left out say once a month versus every week. They are a habitual offender. The violations/fines should be cumulative not each event kicking of a new violation warning.

Also publish what recourses are available to the association. As an example if a fence slat is damaged the owner is given 30 days to correct. At the end of the 30 days the association can correct the problem and bill the owner.

If setting a schedule/fines, etc. then be prepared to stick to it no matter what. Many complain about selective enforcement.

Have a set/fixed fining schedule. Do not be capricious.

Hope this helps.

John, on the subject of being selective, our president adamantly believes he can "secretly" grant any variance from the guidelines he wants to without anyone knowing. Only between board and a specific homeowner in his view, and it can all be done through email with no ones notice (he actually said this). So where some homeowners may receive a fine for violating certain guidelines, others would not because they've been granted a "secret" variance.

CfD, I can think of few faster ways to create problems in an HOA than to grant preferential treatment. Does your president think he can unilaterally waive payment of assessments as well?

I don't know if Virginia is an open records state or not. In Texas, a homeowner who suspected such antics is empowered by state law to have reasonable access to association records, including e-mail.

I am aware of situations in which late payment charges and past due interest charges were waived by the Board, under unusual mitigating circumstances--such as an offer during negotiations to waive such charges if an account is brought current immediately and kept current for X number of months or years. That is an appropriate strategy as long as it is done above board, has a rationale which can be defended (such as avoiding additional arbitration or legal expenses) and is documented.

We do something similar to Tim regarding the exterior of homes, except on a 6 year cycle.

We paint 1/6 of our houses every 6 years. When it's your turn for painting, our painter inspects and marks your house. We expect you to satisfy our HOA's pre-painting standards. During the other 5 years, we'll politely let you know of any blatantly visible deficiencies but we don't set time limits, impose fines, etc.

We find that dealing with only 1/6 of the community every year reduces the amount of energy expended by the Board. The appearance of the community has not suffered. We think we are much better off than we were when we had a PM walk the grounds every month or two and issue deficiency notices.

well, I suppose either statement would be correct

No John, I'm not saying the BOD has no right to grant variances...I'm saying the BOD, not our Architectural Standards Committee, does have that right, but if a variance is to be granted it should be done out in the open in a properly noticed meeting. It really should be no big deal.

Don't recall ever advocating that members vote on everything, but in our association the membership is specifically granted through our declaration the right to be the decision maker on any changes to the architectural guidelines. Changes have to be approved by 51% of the membership to be enacted. Language in our governing docs is clear, attorney's opinion was clear, president and board didn't give a damn. They intended to jam guidelines we didn't want down our throats.

There is a clause in our arch guidelines that specifically states the architectural committee "will not approve any applications that violate any of the governing documents".

My belief is variances occasionally do warrant being granted, but not by a good buddy system between the ASC chairman and a specific homeowner where nobody else in the association is aware of what is going on, and as we're being told in board meetings we don't have a right to know period.

Our BOD doesn't even believe there is a architectural committee at all...they adamantly believe the whole idea of submitting applications is a process only, and the membership at large should not know anything at all about individual applications.

I always have trouble with global standards of performance like this. It's fine as a target to strive for. But that's where it ends for me.

Whether a board/committee action violates some rule is often disputed - and the severity/significance/scope of that violation is typically measured from the eye of the beholder.

Sometimes it's the board/committee saying "big deal" and the HO saying "no big deal." Sometimes it's the other way around. But I don't think that some hard and fast generalization about what your board/committee must and must not do makes sense without the ability somehow to take into consideration the unique nature of the dispute, its frequency, its financial impact, and its effect on safety and goodwill. In my experience, the financial impact is the issue most frequently overlooked by boards and HOs.

In my neck of the woods, we have no saints who play by all the rules all the time. As a community, we keep each other honest by trying to promote an open dialog. It can take years to accomplish this. And we live with the reality that some people with good intentions lack the skills to make this happen.

We have no one on our board who doesn't have personal biases for and against certain people. It's human nature. That's why we strive for diversity of opinion on our board. We don't like placeholders and we have asked a few to resign. But that also means that we must then recruit a replacement. Ultimately we want to build the skill set of the individual Board members without imposing standards of performance that no ordinary human can satisfy to everyone's liking. To me, that's the essence of what we do.

Here is a list of what I think should be there, however I am willing to add delete or change.

Power Wash Roof

Power Wash Driveway

Power Wash Gutters/Downspouts/ Drain Pipes

Weeds in Driveway

Weeds in Flower Beds

Illegal Street Parking

Items Normally Stored Indoors Being Stored in Public View

Commercial Vehicle in Driveway

Basketball Backboard in Driveway

Lawn Needs Mowing

How many of those are actual covenant violations?

Our arch guidelines are treated like rules in our declaration Tim. They supplement the covenants. The prior approval you speak of is outlined in our arch guidelines. Also included in our guidelines are things like the maintenance of grass height, where you can put your trashcan, time you can put it on the street, having a commercial vehicle in your driveway, how many flags we can have in our yard, etc. Our declaration grants the board the ability to fine us for violating any of these guidelines and many more which specifically apply to our lots.

I have no problem complying with the guidelines, or enforcement either. I just want it to be universal and open for everyone.

The whole secrecy thing does not sit well with me and never will.

Not on the board Kerry, but I can read. These sections are from our Declaration:

Section 7.09. Committee's Right to Promulgate Architectural
Guidelines.

Subject to the provisions of Section 7.13 below and Section 7.02(h)
above, the Architectural Standards Committee may from time to time promulgate
Architectural Guidelines governing the form and content of plans to be submitted
for approval or with respect to the approval or disapproval of certain types of
alterations, additions or modifications to improvements, or uses; provided,
however, that no such rule or regulation shall be deemed to bind the Architectural
Standards Committee to approve or disapprove any plans submitted for approval,
or to waive the exercise of the Committee's discretion as to such plans, and
provided further that no such rule or regulation shall be inconsistent with the
provisions of the Declaration or any applicable governmental law, code,
ordinance, rule or regulation. The said Architectural Guidelines and any changes
thereto shall be subject to approval by the Board of Directors and shall be
approved by a vote of a majority (51.0%) of the members present and voting at a
regular meeting of the members. So long as the Developer or its successor owns
one (1) Lot, but in no event more than five (5) years from the date of recording of
35
the Declaration, Developer must approve any changes in or additions to the
Architectural Guidelines.

Section 7.13. Restrictions on Change of Architectural Controls, Rules
or Regulations, Rights of Mortgagees.

After transfer of all Lots by Developer,
the controls set forth in this Article VII and any rules or regulations shall not, by
act or omission, be changed, waived or abandoned, unless consented to in
writing by not less than a majority (51.0%) of the total votes of all Owners
(excluding the Developer) voting in person or by proxy, written notice of which
change shall be sent to all Lot Owners and lending institution first mortgagees of
Lots whose names appear on the records of the Association at least forty (40)
days in advance of the date or initial date set for voting thereon and shall set forth
the purpose of the vote. In addition, any such change, waiver or abandonment
shall not be made if lending institutions which together are first mortgagees of 33
1/3% or more of the Lots advise the Association in writing, prior to the date or
initial date set for voting on the proposed change, waiver or abandonment, that
they are opposed to such action, which opposition must not be unreasonable.
Prior to the sale of all Lots by Developer, Paragraph 7.09 of the Original
Declaration shall apply.

Kerry,

I know what you are saying but it wasn't really a new topic.
It was more of a tangent, which many threads take but are still on topic.

CF initially replied to Jerry.
People asked for some clarifications.