Architectural Control?

I have a neighbor who had a dilemma. They need to replace their roof but they don't have the money to replace it with tile so they want to use shingle. When they contacted the association the association told them they had to repair the unit the way it was "originally constructed" per the restrictions.

Now the restrictions do not possess any architectural control committee or guidelines but the association has interpreted a section for this purpose. That section is titled "Destruction of Dwelling Unit."

The section they cite reads as follows: Any Dwelling Unit repaired or replaced in contemplation of this section shall be repaired or replaced in substantial compliance with architectural design and plans and specifications from which the Dwelling Unit was originally constructed

I added the emphasis.

There is another section titled "Maintenance and Repair."

It reads as follows:

"All Dwelling Units, structures, buildings out buildings, walls and driveways placed and maintained on The Property or any portion thereof, shall at all times be maintained in good condition and repair."

It is my understanding that the any kind of repair, like replacing a roof, would not be subject to this "originally constructed" phrase because that section limits that to what is "contemplated" in the section.

Thoughts?

Kevin,

Do you have a section within the covenants that specify Association approval is needed for any exterior changes?

No.

This is in my neighborhood and while I am going through the courts contesting the validity of their amendment which gave them jurisdiction to enforce restrictions, there is nothing that comes close to architectural control.

Some time back there was a push by a previous board to establish an architectural review board but that vote to amend the restrictions failed.

What I think is interesting is that people in the community have re-roofed with different types of tiles (not shingle though) and have had add-on that were not part of the original construction and/or have different roofing material. Like I have a screened in sun room with an aluminum roof in the back.

There may be something in the by-laws. I have to double check. While I understand these powers are not granted in the restrictions (unless you interpret the destruction amendment and jurisdiction together) the association and their previous attorney were fond of making up stuff. I believe the membership amendment they wrote that gave them jurisdiction had a line like if something isn't written in the covenant than to check the by-laws.

Typical trash HOs.

Buy a house with gubmint backing and 3% down.

Discover the TRUE cost of ownership.

Screw (pun intended) your neighbors by 'cutting corners' and/or reducing building standards in place.

Lower property values for everyone.

Pay the attorneys what was 'saved' to duke it out in court.

Eventually lose home to foreclosure.

The American Attorney's Sweet Dream.

The (far too often) Typical American's Night-Mare. (which is a dream also)

Now, on to the topic at hand:

There is a contract in place.

Either:

enforce

or, if poorly written or ambiguous

mind your own business.

That is the thing. There is no arc restriction apart for one involving the destruction of the property. As for maintenance, there is one but nothing about requiring a set of standards.

MOVE - YESTERDAY would be too late

Your association is CLUELESS

you will not take this advice

you will regret that

'rent is too high'

ergo: 'attorney's fees are too low'

above logic is as good as yours

How do the 'fixed income' folks afford the house maintenance?

Roofing

Painting

HVAC

Driveway maintenance

Shrubbery

Lawncare

Insurance

Pest control

Appliance repair/replacement

etc.

IMO: renting is ALWAYS cheaper, albeit one must live in closer proximity to other people

Even with the landlord's profit margin shared roofs and other mechanicals are always cheaper and MORE EFFICIENT per square foot of habitable space.

Here in Florida, properties can be homesteaded capping property tax increases so that the assessed values of one's residence stays low. Many of the long term residents survived the housing bubble because of that. In the couple years before I homesteaded my taxes jumped from roughly $700 to over $3000. It has since climbed back down and will now enjoy that same cap should it ever rise again.

As for assessments, part of the "mandatory" conversion amendment was that they kind of grandfather the older residents so they are not required to join or pay assessments. That mechanism was added for a couple reasons. 1, the attorneys responsible saw it as a way to avoid Florida statutes that governed true mandatory associations and since at the time many of the original residents lived in the neighborhood and had no plans to sell, the amendment would never affect them and so posed no risk to them.

As for all the other things mentioned, the properties are not that large, with the biggest home being around 1500 sq. ft. and the lawn not much larger. If homeowners choose to be members, they get basic lawn care. Many of the younger residents actually help out the older ones (I kept out an eye on my neighbors property for years and would help do yard work or clean out gutters). There are also several neighborhood "handymen" who work cheap. We have also set up barter groups and Facebook groups that residents utilize to help seek out things like appliances or necessities.

Plus many of our older residents are retired living off pensions and savings from careers they held up north (many from the Tri-State area).

The biggest cost that can arise is roof repair, AC, or plumbing. Many of the houses have been re-piped, roofs repaired or replaced during the 2005 hurricanes, or had their AC done in the last several years. And if a roof hadn't been replaced, many had it sealed (including me) which performs surprisingly well and is only a fraction of the cost.