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

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

LuisP (Florida)
Posts: 2
Posted:
Hello all,

I work in a large condominium complex which is a no pet community. Currently we, like many others, have issues controlling legitimate and illegitimate service and or emotional support animals. We have a form prepared by our attorneys for reasonable accommodation already. Recently, the board has proposed having a designated area for said APPROVED animals to relieve themselves. They have also proposed using some sort of "tag" that would help staff identify approved animals. with this being said, what would be the technicality in making this happen? if we make signs saying "Animal relief area" we wouldn't want to encourage people. if we say "ESA/Service animal relief area" we would want to single them out. my initial draft of the proposed sign is as follows:

SERVICE ANIMAL & ESA RELIEF AREA ONLY
NO PETS ALLOWED
CORDIAL REMINDER

PLEASE PICK UP AFTER YOUR ANIMAL
KEEP YOUR LEASH TAG VISIBLE AT ALL TIMES
ANIMAL MIST BE REGISTERED AND APPROVED
NO BARKING, PLAYING OR OTHER ACTIVITIES PERMITTED

additionally, would requiring someone to use this "tag" be against the law? my understanding is that they don't even require a vest.

see attached image, please ignore the fields as its still just a concept.

this is my first time posting
LuisP (Florida)
Posts: 2
Posted:
File was too large, ignore the image part
GenoS (Florida)
Posts: 4,276
Posted:
The accommodation is for the animal owner, not the animal. I wouldn't have a special area for the animals to relieve themselves. Let the animal owners worry about where to take them for exercise and to relieve themselves. They've got the accommodation to HAVE the animals. They should have to accept the responsibility now to care for their animals and follow all the other rules & regulations while doing so. A broad "NO PETS" policy means the association probably doesn't provide any pet-friendly amenities and the animal owners should deal with it.
PaininyourA
Posts: 215
Posted:
DITTO
LetA (Nevada)
Posts: 2,679
Posted:
First, you should not provide an animal relief area that is paid for with assessments when owners are prohibited from owning dogs. Second, you are treading in deep water
requiring service dogs to wear a special ID tag, certified service animals already wear a harness that identifies them as a service animal.
JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By GenoS on 11/22/2017 6:55 PM
The accommodation is for the animal owner, not the animal. I wouldn't have a special area for the animals to relieve themselves. Let the animal owners worry about where to take them for exercise and to relieve themselves. They've got the accommodation to HAVE the animals. They should have to accept the responsibility now to care for their animals and follow all the other rules & regulations while doing so. A broad "NO PETS" policy means the association probably doesn't provide any pet-friendly amenities and the animal owners should deal with it.

I agree.
AnnaD2 (Florida)
Posts: 960
Posted:
Service animals are not required to wear ANYTHING that identifies them as anything. It's to protect the handler to not have to draw attention to their disability. I also disagree with not providing a place for their service animal to relieve itself. This falls under "reasonable accommodations". If someone is disabled; in a wheelchair; unable to walk or drive or WHATEVER their disability is, don't make them try to find a place (other than their home) to let the dog do their business.

It would be better (in my opinion) to inform the Association Members, that in accordance of the ADA and FHA laws, that people with service animals (and service animals ONLY) are permitted to use a certain area of the property for the service animals to relieve themselves. Handlers will be required to pick up after them. Never use the word "pets".
GenoS (Florida)
Posts: 4,276
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By AnnaD2 on 11/25/2017 4:01 PM
Service animals are not required to wear ANYTHING that identifies them as anything. It's to protect the handler to not have to draw attention to their disability.

I know that no special harness or ID tag is required, but as for the reason is to "protect the handler" from ridicule, got a citation for that? I think that is not true.
JanetB2 (Colorado)
Posts: 4,219
Posted:
With this huge sticky situation which can have legal repercussions ... I would go with what your HOA attorney recommends.
KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550
Posted:
Allowing the animal IS the "reasonable accommodation," IMO. To take extra steps like giving up part of the common area for such animals goes beyond "reasonable accommodation."

In my urban high rise HOA, for instance, we only have raised planters in our common areas. All the animal owners needs to do is ride the elevator to the lobby and travel maybe 30 feet to a street exit to take the animal out.

In a detached home HOA, say a large one, where would this area be? If close to one owner with a service animal, it might be far for another. Why aren't yards suitable for the animals?
PaininyourA
Posts: 215
Posted:
? WHAT ?

Pee and Poop on my OWN grass ???!!!

The Horror The Horror

🎯 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