JohnB11 (Washington)
Posts: 3
Posts: 3
Posted:
Does anyone know of or have a CC&R that contains verbage in regard to view protection?
A service of:
Community123.com
Professional websites for HOAs & condos, since 2004
Professional websites for HOAs & condos, since 2004
🎁 1st year FREE for HOATalk members! →
CC&R's with View Protection verbage
Started by JohnB11 • 16 replies • 6025 views
💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.
Create Free Account →
⚡ Takes 30 seconds
Already a member? Log in
JakeS (South Carolina)
Posts: 24
Posts: 24
Posted:
John
Interesting question what view are you talking about?
Interesting question what view are you talking about?
JohnB11 (Washington)
Posts: 3
Posts: 3
Posted:
Panoramic views of Puget Sound, The Olympic mountains and Mount Rainier. The problem is that some of the people in here don't all have views and are planting large trees to purposely block views.
LeeS1 (New Mexico)
Posts: 24
Posts: 24
Posted:
We have architectural guidelines that limit the height of trees, and some of the covenants also state it (we have many sets of covenants for our development, depending on when a group of houses was built--a nightmare in terms of enforcement). Further, the covenants state that no grouping of vegetation, including trees, shall be planted to constitute a screen. We also have language that states that any building shall not unduly obstruct the views of other buildings. And we have language that refers to harmony and preservation of open space. While this would appear to be rather ambiguous in verbiage, so far we haven't lost a court case because of the lack of specific wording.
JohnB11 (Washington)
Posts: 3
Posts: 3
Posted:
Lee, I would really like to get a copy to look at especially a CC&R that references trees. Our architectural control committee rules and regs spell out tree highs but our lawyers tell it won't stand up in court because the CC&R's don't support it. My E-mail is [email protected] if you could see your way clear of sending me a copy to view.
CarolF (Florida)
Posts: 435
Posts: 435
Posted:
I think this could be state specific. I believe Florida settled this long ago.....no guarantee of a view.
RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164
Posts: 5,164
Posted:
How can trees be planted on Common property? if that is what is happening?
That would require a vote of the members.
It may be possible to have a view easement attached to a deed. Have seen such an animal but don't know if it would work legally.
It seems if the property was private, and no restrictions were in the CC&r's, you could do it. You may want to change your CC&R's to place restriction of this sort, if you can get the votes, and if it would be upheld in the courts. You should be able to find this out from your lawyer, your county council or city ordenances.
That would require a vote of the members.
It may be possible to have a view easement attached to a deed. Have seen such an animal but don't know if it would work legally.
It seems if the property was private, and no restrictions were in the CC&r's, you could do it. You may want to change your CC&R's to place restriction of this sort, if you can get the votes, and if it would be upheld in the courts. You should be able to find this out from your lawyer, your county council or city ordenances.
JackS1 (Colorado)
Posts: 45
Posts: 45
Posted:
This is all that ours say regarding the matter.
3. There shall be only one single family dwelling on each lot. Two family and/or multi-family dwellings are prohibited. No building or structure will be more than 30 feet in height at its highest point from the average grade including chimneys, antennas, etc. A guest house is permitted, but only for the expressed use of guests, and not for a resident or for rental..
4. Views and Sunlight. Buildings and structures constructed in a subdivision shall be placed, so as to minimize undue obstruction of views and sunlight to existing dwellings on adjacent properties.
Jack
3. There shall be only one single family dwelling on each lot. Two family and/or multi-family dwellings are prohibited. No building or structure will be more than 30 feet in height at its highest point from the average grade including chimneys, antennas, etc. A guest house is permitted, but only for the expressed use of guests, and not for a resident or for rental..
4. Views and Sunlight. Buildings and structures constructed in a subdivision shall be placed, so as to minimize undue obstruction of views and sunlight to existing dwellings on adjacent properties.
Jack
GayD
Posts: 1
Posts: 1
Posted:
JohnB. We are in the process of revising our Covenants to include stronger wording re view protection. We have views of mountains, water, etc. Did you find any good language for view protection in your search which would be helpful to us. Also, those on the list, do you have view protection language which would be helpful to us? Thx.
PeteW1 (California)
Posts: 2
Posts: 2
Posted:
Here you go. The association is located in souther CA and has views of the ocean. The board at the time refused to trim the trees for 14 months so a homeowner got enough signatures to change the CC&R's. The attorney at the time said they couldn't do that, lawsuit followed, association won, homeowner appealed, appellate court agreed with homeowner that they could (3-0), association paid $75K to homeowner for legal fees and spent an estimated $100K on their own fees.
SteveN5 (California)
Posts: 1
Posts: 1
Posted:
PeteW1,
Do you have the view protection text, or link?
Thanks
Do you have the view protection text, or link?
Thanks
LeeS1 (New Mexico)
Posts: 24
Posts: 24
Posted:
Some views are protected in city/county ordinances. Go to www.sandiahomeowners.org and look under the ACC (architectural control) and then Design Guidelines. While the HOA has "guidelines," they have been held up in court, because all applications to the ACC are treated in a consistent manner. The county has height restrictions, too.
CarlL1 (Washington)
Posts: 11
Posts: 11
Posted:
GayD, our Camano Island HOA is currently involved in a lawsuit and process to strengthen view rights that were removed 11 years ago by a CC&Rs amendment & restatement that was not understood by the members until a problem developed with a recalcitrant homeowner 2-3 years ago.
If you found some good view preservation statements in CC&Rs for WA, we would be interested in knowing what they were.
The Los Tulares HOA in CA has a strong statement that has survived the test of the CA courts: http://www.lthoa.org/template-pages/architectural/view-preservation.
"Trees and shrubs that are located on your property, that are visible from your neighbors homes active living areas, need to be maintained at a height that is at or below your homes maximum roof height when viewed from their active living areas."
If you found some good view preservation statements in CC&Rs for WA, we would be interested in knowing what they were.
The Los Tulares HOA in CA has a strong statement that has survived the test of the CA courts: http://www.lthoa.org/template-pages/architectural/view-preservation.
"Trees and shrubs that are located on your property, that are visible from your neighbors homes active living areas, need to be maintained at a height that is at or below your homes maximum roof height when viewed from their active living areas."
LarryB13 (Arizona)
Posts: 4,099
Posts: 4,099
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By CarolF on 09/03/2007 3:29 PM
I think this could be state specific. I believe Florida settled this long ago.....no guarantee of a view.
I think this could be state specific. I believe Florida settled this long ago.....no guarantee of a view.
From time to time we have had cases pop up in our courts where one person claims that another has diminished his property value by blocking his view of the mountains. These are always non-HOA properties and the courts have consistently ruled that a property owner does not have a right to any particular view across someone else's property.
I would think that any view restrictions will have to be in the form of restrictions in the CC&R's and will not be found in state laws.
PaulT6 (California)
Posts: 409
Posts: 409
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By CarlL1 on 09/10/2012 10:14 AM
GayD, our Camano Island HOA is currently involved in a lawsuit and process to strengthen view rights that were removed 11 years ago by a CC&Rs amendment & restatement that was not understood by the members until a problem developed with a recalcitrant homeowner 2-3 years ago.
If you found some good view preservation statements in CC&Rs for WA, we would be interested in knowing what they were.
The Los Tulares HOA in CA has a strong statement that has survived the test of the CA courts: http://www.lthoa.org/template-pages/architectural/view-preservation.
"Trees and shrubs that are located on your property, that are visible from your neighbors homes active living areas, need to be maintained at a height that is at or below your homes maximum roof height when viewed from their active living areas."
GayD, our Camano Island HOA is currently involved in a lawsuit and process to strengthen view rights that were removed 11 years ago by a CC&Rs amendment & restatement that was not understood by the members until a problem developed with a recalcitrant homeowner 2-3 years ago.
If you found some good view preservation statements in CC&Rs for WA, we would be interested in knowing what they were.
The Los Tulares HOA in CA has a strong statement that has survived the test of the CA courts: http://www.lthoa.org/template-pages/architectural/view-preservation.
"Trees and shrubs that are located on your property, that are visible from your neighbors homes active living areas, need to be maintained at a height that is at or below your homes maximum roof height when viewed from their active living areas."
I would guess that it might depend on whether the trees were already there before construction or planted during or after construction. In our case most of the 6,000 acres were/are heavily forested and it would be practically impossible to limit their height. One of the problems we have is people cutting down trees on neighboring lots or the common area to obtain a view. Big no no!! Up to $5,000 fine per tree. Until we substantially raised the fine we had many trees cut down "by accident", probably just considered "the one time cost for a view". Since the increase to $5,000 per tree we have had very few problems. Unless there are some specifics in your C&R's it is probably "buyer beware"?
Paul T
CarlL1 (Washington)
Posts: 11
Posts: 11
Posted:
In our development (PRD), it was pretty much scorched earth after logging in about 1990 and the PRD and the original Declaration were done in 19092/1993. The PRD Plat document Reservations deferred to the Declaration in matters of view preservation over the Common Areas which charged the association with that responsibility. The 2001 amendment quietly took away that protection and deferred to the County. The original Declaration/PRD Plat allowed topping, trimming, limbing but not felling. The County says, "Thou shalt not touch." So, our members lost a protection and right they did not know they lost. Under the General Plan restrictions in WA, it actually takes 100% of the members concurrence to effect that change which the amendments did not get, but were adopted by the association anyway - here come the lawyers.
MelissaP1 (Alabama)
Posts: 13,836
Posts: 13,836
Posted:
This is a really old post. It is best to make another topic. Thank you.
Former HOA President
🎯 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