Changing Pet Weight Rules

Another week, another pet-related post. Sorry it's kind of long, but I wanted to include all the relevant information. The issue: I'm on the BOD for my townhome (technically condo) association, and I'm trying to persuade the other members that we should eliminate or at least relax our pet weight rule.

It doesn't serve any useful purpose since we already have and enforce rules about specific behaviors (waste, leashes, damage, etc). Moreover, a few owners have documented service or support dogs that are over the limit, but don't cause any problems, which shows why weight shouldn't be an issue. However, the presence of these dogs, along with a couple of others that look borderline in terms of weight, is causing concern among a couple of homeowners who have complained to the board. But this seems like a fight we don't need to have, especially when the animals being complained about aren't doing anything other than possibly being over the weight limit. We've also had other homeowners asking about raising the limit too, so at least some homeowners would support a rule change. Possibly most, for all I know.

Our current rule limits homeowners to a maximum of two pets, with a combined weight limit of 30 pounds. It's been on the books for a long time -- well over a decade, and probably closer to fifteen years -- but originally, for the first several years of the association, there wasn't a limit. I am not sure why the limit was enacted, but many of the homeowners who would have lived here at the time have moved on, and I don't think everyone supported the change, but owners with pets over the limit at the time of the change were grandfathered in.

Our limit is definitely lower than all of the townhome complexes around us, and several of the apartment buildings as well (we're in an area with a fair amount of multifamily housing). The trend around here is to be more permissive about animals rather than less, since that is what the market wants, but we haven't updated yet. In fact, I've spoken with local realtors who have said our restrictions will make a lot of townhouse buyers rule out our complex.

Regarding the CC&Rs, this is only in the rules, not the declarations or bylaws. The declarations don't address this at all, and the bylaws only mention pets as an example of what the HOA is allowed to regulate as needed. As such, this is something that the BOD can change by ourselves.

Something strange about the rule, though, is that we don't have any fines or other penalties listed for infractions, and no established process for handling it other than issuing warning letters. I don't think this has ever been seriously challenged. We do have a clause in our rules stating that the Board can issue fines not listed on the fine schedule at its discretion, so maybe that would apply here, but I've never heard of this being done in our HOA, and it seems like levying fines that aren't clearly established would be asking for trouble.

It's also worth noting that our MC recommends that we remove the rule due to the difficulty of enforcement, since they're the ones that would have to do it (we had a different MC when the rule was enacted). Their advice is that we align our pet rules with the city ordinances, which they mostly are except for weight and the number of pets allowed (our city allows three). I realize that, as the BOD, it's our call on what the rules will be, but I think we should be listening to their advice here due to their experience and knowledge. They've told us that they've almost never seen this type of rule successfully enforced.

I don't know if I will be successful in persuading the other members to drop the rule entirely, but I may be able to convince them to at least raise it – this would not eliminate the enforcement issues, but it may make them less likely and might placate those who wouldn't be comfortable with abandoning it entirely. Any thoughts or suggested strategies? I'm happy to answer questions if anything is unclear.

Not sure what you mean by that? Nobody on our board wants to restrict documented service or support animals. Unless you mean that someone can just get said documentation to bypass the rule (which, IMO, is all the more reason why we shouldn't bother having one).

Dogs weight usually don't equate on how dangerous they are. Matter of fact, smaller dogs are known to bite more often than larger dogs. I happen to own a Chihuahua/Datsun mix. Those two dog types top list of dogs most likely to bite. He does bite. (Got me 2 times). He's less than 20lbs.

Insurance companies typically don't go by dog weight but by breed. Your most likely to pay more for insurance for a Doberman or a Pitt Bull. I'd use their guidelines if I were ever consider putting in any kind of pet restriction.

Pet weight limits are among the most illogical of the HOA rules, and they're based in nothing that remotely resembles hard data.

Small dogs are more often unruly, disobedient, and apt to bite; though many of their owners think it's somehow "cute" when they have a disobedient ankle-biter.
A minimum weight limit would make more sense in practice.

If you can get rid of them, get ride of them. (the rules, not the dogs)

It's also a matter of perception. I don't like dogs at all and view them all with a certain level of suspicion. Larger dogs are an easier target because they are perceived as more dangerous, even if that's demonstrably not the case.

The weight limits are, well,. stupid. Big dogs often make better apartment dogs than little ones. These rules also signal that the board is asleep at the wheel. Get rid of them if you can. It will help property values. An HOA should have the minimum rules possible for people to live together in harmony.

Who is named as the dog weight enforcement officer?
Naturally, if you have a weight limit of, say 30 lb, someone needs to go around and weigh every dog that looks like it weighs over ~15 lb. Should be done on a regular basis, so that no dogs are allowed to game the system by dieting, exercising, and wearing saran-wrap outfits in order to sweat the weight away to make the cut on weigh-in day. And of course, if that 29lb dog happens to pack on more than 16oz during the winter when it's more difficult to get exercise, out they go.

Yes, it's as stupid as it sounds. Get rid of the rule if you can.

Yes, this was one of the concerns put forward by our MC and why we're being advised to change it. Right now if someone thinks a dog looks over the limit, they notify the MC, who then sends a warning letter to the homeowner, who can challenge it. There's no actual documentation of anything, and I've brought this up but have been ignored.

I agree with you and your MC. Virtually all local governments will have ordinances such as "all dogs must be on a leash" and "regulate the number of dogs allowed", so no sense for the HOA to supersede and take on legal liability. I like it because if a homeowner for instance complains a neighbors dog is barking ... LOL ... you could smile and politely state we do not regulate pets and here is the number for the local animal control to file your complaint. Yep ... nice as there is nothing to investigate and regulate. If a dog bites anyone the local authorities are the entity required to investigate and handle. They are also after all the ones who are "trained" and paid to handle such issues.

LOL ... Of course because Developers when they submit their plans to local government also must submit a copy of their CCR's to be reviewed by the local government attorney. In my area they make sure there are provisions where the HOA cannot disband or be eliminated without the local government approval just to mention one item. The local governments like these type items in the CCR''s because it then relieves themselves of some (but not all) liability to enforce.

On a recent post another OP stated his documents noted any amendments had to be sent out 90 days in advance AND included both the local aand county governments to be informed for approval. I have to admit that is a first of that nature I have personally encountered.

Many people feel this way. However, in no way are pets legally part of one's family.

I quoted you word for word.

I am pretty sure everyone knows what was actually meant. Literally nobody here is arguing that a pet is a legal family member.

All of the townhomes around us allow larger dogs to some extent, though the specifics vary by property. Some apartments do too -- I used to live in one of them, and it didn't allow dogs at all when I lived there, but now they advertise how dog-friendly they are. So right off the bat, we're at a disadvantage to nearby properties when it comes time to sell, and we're not offering anything they don't to offset it (if anything, we'd be perceived as having other disadvantages too due to location). People's expectations regarding pets have definitely changed, as you noted, and they will continue to do so as more and more people in their 20's and 30's move into the housing market.