challenging an HOA

Ilive in Myrtle Beach, and our BOD runs amuck, based on just what it is they want to do. The president has a thing for the college kids, people with small children and renters. He's on record as saying the community was supposed to be an "empty nester" community when that absolutely isn't true. It is by no means a 55 and above community, and there was nothing in the marketing literature from the builder to any demographic. The builder wouldn't have been that stupid. But it points to the mindset of the BoD.

My problem is that I am on an ARC committee and they reject perfectly okay ideas simply if they don't like the person making the application. The last application was for a pavered patio extension. The woman went through the paces, the people on the committee signed off on it, and the president vetoed it. She was sent a letter, saying they the ARC and BoD would not be permitting any paving in of patios on the property. However, there already are extended patios in the community. Some were owner installed; others were the builder's upgrade. They didn't commit the reason to paper, but they said that they thought the use of different kinds of brick, colors, textures... would make the community look tacky and trashy. Her design was pretty and to be professionally installed.

She wants her patio. It would correct a shallow area in her deeded back yard that holds water, and nothing can grow there but mold as it is shady.

What can she do? When you see some of what has already been installed, I can see why she is offended.

The President does not have the right to veto what was approve the by the ARC.

We had a similar situation, in reverse. A homeowner had all the proper papers, she wanted to pt gray pavers on her driveway. The Chair of the ARC does not like the HO so she shot it down. The HO came to the BOD. We did not know about the situation until 3 weeks after. The HO counted 36 homes with the same pavers in their driveways. We voted and overturned the ARC. The Chair is no longer.

You have to put personal feelings aside when you make decisions. If you cannot be biased, step aside and let others make the decision.

MikeS1 - Many condos, including mine, allow private improvements on common or limited common areas. My COA permits paved patios that are under our raised decks depending on the elevations, etc. There is an approved choice of pavers and design to choose from. Rather progressive decision on our COA Board's part.

It certainly sound like the board is being inconsistant and is descriminating, unless there are other facts absent here. If they have approved other extensions, why not this one?

Another issue - our BoD says that we own the streets in our community. How can I verify thhat? The reason there is a problem with it is because they do not want to put in accessible parking for disabled people. It may be that if we own the streets, we could be exempt. The Board has told people not to worry about parking in those spaces as the tow company has been told to disregard cars in those spaces.

I just located another copy of the by-laws and it seems as if the the BoD can refuse recommendations of the Arc Committee. I don't know how to override it, but it seems very unfair to tell an entire group of owners that they cannot put in extended patios when they already exist in the community.

The accessible spaces were created by the developer. I'll check tomorrow at the Codes Office to find out the answer, but I can't imagine Portrait Homes would do anything if they did not have to... That is why we have questioned why the BoD can remove them, other than the one at the pool.

LOL, there is another problem. They don't have a quorum depsite requests to have the meetings at a time when more people can attend. The BoD are all retired, so they have the meeting at 9:00 am.

SusanJ3,

There are a few items going in your posts...

First, I agree with Paul that your board must provide a "reason" (why) the application was rejected. In most cases, it should be a governing document ruling (as Paul mentioned) which establishes the rationale for rejection as part of the doc's - and not be subjective. However, there are some subjective measures that a board can evoke which (again) should be part of the governing documents as well. Not sure how far you want to push this with the HOA, but you do have some additional rights. You can seek outside remedies to move your board closer to the "center" on the paver issue.

On a follow-up post you mentioned that quorom was not effected on the meeting where the vote was taken. If you can factually prove that - then actions taken during that session, by the board, could be deemed invalid. Now if you are referring to community required quorum (not board-member attendence quorom to open meeting); then only your governing documents can address those requirements. Most (not all) documents do not require a community quorom for the board to conduct regular business; this is usually a requirement for "special" meetings (elections, special assessments, etc).

LouiseH1 - posted that you can verify street "ownership" (local municipality, or HOA) which is an excellent suggestion. If you know who owns - then you know who is responsible to adhere to laws governing handicap accessibility requirements. I do want to point out that I do NOT agree with LouiseH1's statement that if a disabled person would be able to challenge. The only areas where federal (or local) laws would "trump" HOA requirements, or instill additional requirements, would be the common areas. Structures which have HOA provided parking such as clubhouse, pool, lounge, etc - would have requirements for handicap parking (and accessibility). General parking areas, which are open to all owners - would not necessarily fall under such a requirement. It would be my hope that an HOA would be as accomodating as possible - and the handicap owners would also be equally responsible. There is another recent post on this - although "recent" for me is about 2-5 weeks ago, as I have not posted here in awhile.

Well, there is a start. We are considered a private community by the county, so perhaps the accessible parking is something the HOA won. I would still think they would have to provide some, especially in guest parking.

The way they run the meetings confuses me. We are not permitted to vote, although I believe we are class A members. We are owners. The BoD specifically has the meetings during the day when the only people who attend are retirees like themselves. They've been asked to have evening meetings, but refuse. They say ow the meeting schedule for the rest of the year has been decided. They also put some of that on our management company, who rep doesn't want to do evening meetings. When I walk in the evenings, I meet several younger peoole who would come to the meetings, but they work or are in school. And that is just what the Bod wants. They also say we cannot vote, the only people who can vote are on the BoD.

Cathy,

This thread is over 6 years old.
Reactivating an old thread may cause issues for future readers. This is because laws change and what was good advice in 2007 may be bad advice in 2013.

It's best if you start a new thread by clicking the "add new topic" icon on the main Discussion page directly above the blue banner for the Topics.

Tim

How exactly is that written in your documents?

And you said that the president vetoed the ACC approval. Does the President have that power according to your documents? I doubt it. The President is likely just ONE voice among the entire board and gets a single vote like the others. This isn't the US Govt where the Pres has veto powers over Congress.