Architectural approval for addition of builder options

Started by VP1 • 15 replies • 1211 views

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

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

VP1 (California)
Posts: 3

Posted:

Hi,

We are in the process of getting HOA architectural approval for second floor room addition. Per HOA guidelines, the maximum second floor room addition square footage is limited to 10% of square footage as constructed by the builder. Part of the addition we are doing is a retreat which was a builder option in our floor plan. My question is whether this builder optional retreat subject to the 10% limitation. Our HOA has been fairly inconsistent in this matter and has already approved the same addition in some instances and tried to litigate in other instances. Thanks.

NpS (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,216

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By VP1 on 06/05/2016 11:36 PM
Hi,

We are in the process of getting HOA architectural approval for second floor room addition. Per HOA guidelines, the maximum second floor room addition square footage is limited to 10% of square footage as constructed by the builder. Part of the addition we are doing is a retreat which was a builder option in our floor plan. My question is whether this builder optional retreat subject to the 10% limitation. Our HOA has been fairly inconsistent in this matter and has already approved the same addition in some instances and tried to litigate in other instances. Thanks.

Hi and welcome.

1. Did the inconsistencies have anything to do with the square footages involved?

2. If you did your additions in two steps, getting two separate additions, would that be allowed under the rules?

3. What is the exact wording in the rules?

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.

NpS (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,216

Posted:

REDO:

Quote:

Posted By NpS on 06/06/2016 4:20 AM

Hi and welcome.

1. Did the inconsistencies have anything to do with the square footages involved?

2. If you did your additions in two steps, getting two separate additions approved, would that be allowed under the rules?

3. What is the exact wording in the rules?

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.

PitA
Posts: 1,416

Posted:

the key wording is: as constructed

since the option was NOT constructed it does NOT count as 'footage'

plain simply 12th grade english

VP1 (California)
Posts: 3

Posted:

1. Did the inconsistencies have anything to do with the square footages involved?
The HOA architect initially rejected the plan because of 2 issues: Roof Style and Square footage. On the roof style we countered that the same roof style was approved by him about 9 months ago on another house. Then he changed his rejection of the roof style to recommendation. Regarding the square footage, we provided proof that this same square footage for our floorplan has been approved on one of the neighbors houses in 2011. Our HOA design guidelines have not changed since 2003. The neighbors house was approved in 2011 on the premise that the builder option is not subject to the 10% limit. The HOA architect said he was not involved on the 2011 approval and referred us to the HOA attorney. I contacted the HOA attorney and he was very evasive on giving a straight answer. It seemed that he doesn't want to get involved. He suggested to file an appeal with the full HOA board and let them make a decision. We filed an appeal and will meet the full HOA board near the end of June to discuss this.

2. If you did your additions in two steps, getting two separate additions approved, would that be allowed under the rules?
I discussed this with them, but without getting waiver on builder option square footage, the two step addition will not make a difference in this case.

3. What is the exact wording in the rules?
The maximum square footage of a second-floor room addition is 10% of the total square footage of the second floor as originally constructed by Declarant or a Merchant Builder.

PitA
Posts: 1,416

Posted:

the key wording STILL is: as constructed

since the option was NOT constructed it does NOT count as 'footage'

plain simply 12th grade English

however

you are free to continue twisting and squirming in an attempt to circumvent plain language

albeit

others have been successful because of the ignorance of the ?senile? volunteers on your ACC

NpS (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,216

Posted:

Have you seen the 2011 documentation?

Have you thought about putting a petition together and getting it signed by homeowners who agree that the 2011 approval should become the standard?

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.

VP1 (California)
Posts: 3

Posted:

Have you seen the 2011 documentation?
I have seen the HOA approval letter. It doesn't mention the reason why it was approved. The HOA provides a reason only if the plan is rejected.

Have you thought about putting a petition together and getting it signed by homeowners who agree that the 2011 approval should become the standard?
I am waiting for our appeal meeting with the HOA board before taking the next step. In the meantime, I was able to talk to one of the HOA board members regarding this issue. He said that the intent of 10% limit is to limit deviation from the original build of the community and preserve the architectural integrity. In his opinion, if the optional retreat is being built exactly as per original blueprint from builder, it is considered as originally constructed by the builder and not subject to the 10% limit. Additionally, he mentioned that if there is a precedence in the case, HOA board usually defers to the previous HOA decision in order to maintain consistency. I am going to wait couple of weeks to see how the entire HOA board thinks about this issue.
Thanks,

NpS (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,216

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By VP1 on 06/07/2016 12:35 PM
I was able to talk to one of the HOA board members regarding this issue. He said that the intent of 10% limit is to limit deviation from the original build of the community and preserve the architectural integrity. In his opinion, if the optional retreat is being built exactly as per original blueprint from builder, it is considered as originally constructed by the builder and not subject to the 10% limit. Additionally, he mentioned that if there is a precedence in the case, HOA board usually defers to the previous HOA decision in order to maintain consistency. I am going to wait couple of weeks to see how the entire HOA board thinks about this issue.
Thanks,

Nice. Best of luck. Keep us informed.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 3,868

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By VP1 on 06/07/2016 12:35 PM
Have you seen the 2011 documentation?
I have seen the HOA approval letter. It doesn't mention the reason why it was approved. The HOA provides a reason only if the plan is rejected.

Have you thought about putting a petition together and getting it signed by homeowners who agree that the 2011 approval should become the standard?
I am waiting for our appeal meeting with the HOA board before taking the next step. In the meantime, I was able to talk to one of the HOA board members regarding this issue. He said that the intent of 10% limit is to limit deviation from the original build of the community and preserve the architectural integrity. In his opinion, if the optional retreat is being built exactly as per original blueprint from builder, it is considered as originally constructed by the builder and not subject to the 10% limit. Additionally, he mentioned that if there is a precedence in the case, HOA board usually defers to the previous HOA decision in order to maintain consistency. I am going to wait couple of weeks to see how the entire HOA board thinks about this issue.
Thanks,

For once, a board that understands what they are doing.

Pita, sorry, your mentality reminds me of someone running for President.

PitA
Posts: 1,416

Posted:

Ah, yes, let us INTERPRET our Covenants instead of merely COMPLYING with them.

Why should I not simply reinterpret a contract I no longer agree with and act as I please ?

re: candidate remark

When did simple straight talk become offensive ?

Assuming you wish to stop the invasion by illegals, what is YOUR suggestion ?

Since a follower of Islam may NOT denounce their religion, WHY NOT ask a potential NON CITIZEN visitor if they are followers and if yes, screen them more - remember, most radical Islamic terrorists did NOT sneak in, they were admitted without screening.

? What, EXACTLY, is YOUR solution ?

ps. A child of ILLEGAL aliens should NOT be ruling on immigration matters.

Richard,
Thank you for my 'morning wind-up'
Now I can skip the second cup of java

NpS (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,216

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By PitA on 06/08/2016 4:41 AM
Ah, yes, let us INTERPRET our Covenants instead of merely COMPLYING with them.

Why should I not simply reinterpret a contract I no longer agree with and act as I please ?

A contract is always open to reinterpretation and/or revision by the parties to that contract. If the affected people are willing, then the option is available to make changes.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.

PitA
Posts: 1,416

Posted:

.....by the parties to that contract.

The key is the PLURAL word 'parties'.

The use of 'all' before the word is understood just like the use of '+' before a number.

Until the contract is, in fact, amended, it stands AS WRITTEN.

NPS, now YOU want to wind me up and watch me run ? - enjoy

NpS (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,216

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By PitA on 06/08/2016 9:24 AM

.....by the parties to that contract.

Not necessarily.

I would have used the word "all" if that's what I intended.

Agreements may be amended by some but not all if the "some" have the authority to make the changes.

A representative of country A signs a treaty with a representative of country B.

It could bind all the citizens of both countries.

But the signatures of all the citizens wouldn't be needed even though thy are made parties by the terms of the agreement.

And sometimes fewer than "all" the needed people reach an agreement - But if no one objects within a certain time, the courts sometimes allow it to stand.

Don't agree with your point on contracts either.

The Bill of Rights to the US Constitution is a contract.

It has only 462 words in it.

Yet hundreds of thousands of pages have been written on what those 462 words mean.

Sure "it stands AS WRITTEN".

But that's a meaningless statement if you and I don't agree on what those words actually say.

I sidestepped the political junk which I think has no place here.

I see no basis for you getting wound up because of what I wrote about contracts.

Nah, really don't like this - think I'll go back to my ordinary style of writing.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.

PitA
Posts: 1,416

Posted:

CfD (Virginia)
Posts: 265

Posted:

I agree with Richard's response on every level.

Will add that I don't think any HOA board can "usually" defer to any previous HOA decision. If the Board has approved substantially similar plans for whatever reason in the past, and your guidelines have not changed, I am of the opinion any attempt to prevent another owner from doing the same addition will lose a potential challenge in court.

🎯 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