resolution vs amendment

I recently moved to a HOA. It is approximately 13 years old. When it was built, trees were planted just on the edge of your property in the front of each house. Thru the years, these street trees roots have grown thru the grass and are beginning to uproot many sidewalks along side your home (which you own). In 2013, the Board passed a resolution indicating that these trees which are on owner's property will now become the lot owners' responsibility to either maintain, remove, replace. etc. I checked with the Property Mgmt Office, and they told me it was my responsibility now due to the resolution. I had been on 2 other HOA boards, and never experienced passing responsibility on to a homeonwer without a bylaw amendment. Is this something they can do. Many of my neighbors have questioned it as well, but no one does anything about challenging it. Thank you. This will be costly for me to remove and repair my buckeled sidewalk.

What did/does the CC&R's have to say about ownership and/or maintenance of both the sidewalks and the trees?

Betty, you'll have to look at the language of your CCRs and other docs. If they assign responsibility for the trees to the HOA then a mere resolution would not be enough to foist off responsibility for them onto the owners. It would take an amendment to the docs.

Betty - check your property plat and see where your property lines are, this will tell you if the other tree is on your property. The plat will also show your easements and what is common area. The Board's duty is to maintain the common areas. We have the same problem in our community where trees were planted to close to homes now that they have grown. I just had to have one removed and paid for it $150. You can also check with your Town and see if the sidewalks are their responsibility since they are responsible for the roads. Get a letter from your BOD explaining their decision. Get a price on what it will cost to correct your problem. Hope this helps.

Easy to suggest relocating. I just moved here in December. I knew nothing about the "resolution" that the board passed in 2013. Thank you for your feedback.

@ ND:
It is a gated 55+ community that is approximately 13-14 years old. Single family homes, you own the house and the land it sits upon. My land is approx 130' long and about 50' wide.

I was handed a nicely sealed package of the bylaws at closing. It's about 2" thick. But I have read thru it. Two years ago, the board passed the resolution that "street trees" on lot owners property will be come the lot owners' responsibility. The resolution does mention it was formerly maintained by the association on owners property.
It continues to say that homeowners are responsible for any damage caused by the trees to driveways, sidewalks,etc.

The Board's actions in my opinion seem "shady" indeed (pun intended). You and your neighbors (who also have trees) definitely need to get to the bottom of whether the resolution was created and passed appropriately.

Unfortunately the issue of trees lifting sidewalks and driveways needs to be addressed. And it will be an expensive issue. It's just a matter of if the expense will be burdened by the entire HOA or only the homes who have these street trees. Before the resolution, it may have been the entire HOA. With the resolution, the expense is now to be burdened by the individual homeowners.

Those without street trees will be in favor of putting the burden on you. And you will likely be in favor of how it was previously (a shared expense). Are street tree people the majority or minority? Something to think about if this topic needs to be challenged.

If homeowners are responsible, what's to stop you all today from going out with chainsaws and cutting these trees down? That's what I would do, since I'd much rather not have a tree than spend thousands replacing sidewalks, driveways, etc. Sure, you'll lose the aesthetics of the trees, but that's what the Board's resolution will drive people to do. Perhaps that was not their intent either.

Betty

The questions is are you trying to get out of paying by saying the BOID did not have the right to say what they said?

We have had a few go arounds in my HOA about our identical, existing fences as ir around each backyard. As we read our Covenants, the owners are responsible for maintaining the fences. We sent out a letter quoting the Covenants (which are rather clear) to clarify this. Of course we got pushback like some saying they were told otherwise when they bought, some threatening to sue, etc. Sorry folks but the Covenants are clear.

If there's nothing in the CC&Rs that require the HOA to maintain the trees on your lot, then I think the resolution was sufficient. Nothing needs amending if there's no formal obligation to maintain.

Makes no difference that service was previously provided by HOA. Board had the right to stop at any time since there was no obligation.

As a practical matter, if I was on your board, I would have probably voted in favor of the resolution. It's not just about shifting responsibility. There is also the difficult question of which sidewalks get replaced/repaired and which one's don't and which trees get removed or saved. Wherever you try to draw the line, there's always going to be push back. And IMO your board is being smart by avoiding the squabbles. Been there - done that.

Betty,

IMO, you're moving too quickly on having the trees removed. In the short term, they aren't going to cause anymore damage than they already have. You have many weeks and months to possibly sort this out with your neighbors and the HOA.

IMO, your Board has potentially made a bad move in dealing with this issue. But not being able to review your documents and plat, I can't really say for sure.

Making each individual homeowner responsible, you are forever going to have repair crews in your neighborhood (hired by each individual homeowner) doing tree work, fixing sidewalks, repairing driveways, etc. The result will no longer be the aesthetically uniform design that you currently have. Maybe nobody cares about that though. Individually you will each be paying through the nose to have the work done. You local contractors will love you. Collectively, you could benefit greatly from economies of scale. Companies could work large sections of your development simultaneously and price per tree/sidewalk would be greatly reduced.

From what you say, you haven't even confirmed that the trees are on your property. It's possible that if you remove a tree that's not yours, then the owner (neighbor or HOA) will come after you to replace it (potentially with similar size). You'll be paying even more.

IMO, you should sort this all out before you proceed in any single direction.

Bottom line, docs should say if HOA is/was responsible for maintaining. If they weren't responsible initially, then no resolution should have been necessary . . . they could have just made the statement that they won't be maintaining anymore. However, I'm led to believe that they were originally responsible, and now they are improperly and unwisely (IMO) shifting that responsibility to the homeowners without really thinking it all through.

Tim, thanks so much for your comments. Betty Ann

I have a problem with trees as well. The trees are large oaks and they are beautiful and provide shade and housing for beautiful birds and sometimes racoons and squirrels. Some residents hate the trees and want them gone, other residents love the trees and want them to remain. The tree roots do push up the sidewalks and driveways in a few spots, and some cause the driveways to be dirty. The problem I have is that its against city ordinance to cut down a tree. It needs to be dead, dying or struck by lightening. You then have to plant a new tree in its place. Our documents are silent on the trees. So we made a policy that mimics the city ordinance and requires one of those reasons to cut down the tree and we approved a large list of replacement trees chosen by a master gardener for their ability to thrive in our conditions here. One problem is that for the folks who do not agree with the policy or ordinance, they simply kill the tree or cut it down without permission. Others hack it up so bad that it does not resemble a tree anymore. If the board says 'ok the association will take care of all trees from now on', it will cost a small fortune. And folks will still kill the trees or cut them down. Yes we are allowed to fine the violators and we do but big deal, they got what they wanted with a small fine. I would say the community is divided in half on this issue. If we put it to vote and the majority want the trees gone, trees must be planted in their place. And what about those folks who do not want the trees gone? Do we make them cut down their trees so the neighborhood can look somewhat in conformity? So for now we are sticking with the policy and deal with each difficult situation as it arises.

I believe Allison was saying that the ordinance was used as an example to draft their rule on trees.