Member rights at an ARC Meeting

I am a bit confused why this isn't being done already. How does your ACC make decisions if it's not listening to the other owner's opinion? I don't think people are just "using" it for fun. It sounds like they are mad and frustrated for a reason. Simply because no involvement is happening or feedback amongst the other members.

Where I live we are mixed with city and county. If someone moves in they want to become part of the city, the city notifies us to meet at the City meeting to address any issues we may have with that. We can choose to attend if we want. M

It sounds like the ACC is intentionally drowning out opinions except for their own.

Art

I say unless someone has business with the ARC, meaning they have filed an ARC Request, they have no business with the ARC thus they should not be allowed to talk.

If someone objects to an ARC Ruling, their business should be with the BOD to try and convince the BOD to change the ARC ruling.

John

I tend to agree with you.

What we have is not anyone being constructive, just disruptive.

If this was A subcommittee meeting consisting of board members only, this might make sense, but in most cases, advisory committees consist of people who aren't on the board. If you have several requests to address, you don't want to be there all day or night, and neither do the homeowners whose requests are being heard. Shepherds a risk of the meeting going on and on because there are people who don't have an exterior change request, but who just want to vent.

If the board is the group that sets design standards and appoints the committee and listens to the appeals it makes more sense to go to the people who are in the best position to make those changes instead of a committee that can be overruled by the board.

Aug

FS 720.303 (2) (a) states in part, "The provisions of this subsection shall also apply to the meetings of any committee or other similar body when a final decision will be made regarding the expenditure of association funds and to meetings of any body vested with the power to approve or disapprove architectural decisions with respect to a specific parcel of residential property owned by a member of the community."

Does not "with respect to a specific parcel" not mean those that can speak must be relative to a parcel being discussed versus others speaking?

What if the architectural approval function is by a broad and nit a committee?

What if it is by the Architectural Representative?

I might contend those owners without a request before the architectural reviewers has no standing.

No, I'm not saying ignore the law, but you can and should bring some order in the process. Nothing wrong with having a brief resident forum, but as Art and John said, what's the point of complaining about the process in front of people who can't change it? Perhaps they don't want to, in which case it makes sense to go to the people who can - the board of directors.

For example, If the committee has been wildly inconsistent applying design standards, the board should investigate that. Maybe the committee members need to be reminded of the protocols. Perhaps there is a member who's clearly biased and needs to be removed. Maybe the standards are outdated and need to be reviewed.

And if people can't make the board meeting, they can still send a letter to the board of file an appeal and make their objections at that time. If the board is smart, they might take note that lots of people seem to have similar complaints above start looking at what may be behind the pattern and can address it.

Also not arguing here. Instead, here are my observations or contentions.

-- In my experience, and when the governing documents speak of an ARC, the governing documents do typically vest an ARC with this power.

-- On the other hand, competent HOA attorneys say that the Board has the power to override the ARC. This is for a few good reasons.

-- Do members who apply to the ARC for xyz and are turned down have a common law right of appeal to the HOA Board? I think arguing this right of appeal is generally fair, for a few reasons. The competent HOA attorneys (and no doubt the HOATalk.com Supreme Court and various newbie clerks of same [hoatalk.com snob here]) know these well.

-- But often there is no appeal. Instead, the ARC reviews the application carefully and stamps it, "approved." Or maybe the ARC stamps it "disapproved," because of, say, blatant violations of the covenants, and the applicant does not care to appeal. (The applicant realizes that, 'Oh my gosh, covenants exist, and I agreed to these covenants as contractual terms. Bad on me. And darned HOA. I want my 5000 square foot shed on my 10,000 square foot lot. Waaah... ') The application never reaches the Board. Don't such instances make it clear that the ARC has a lot of power?

-- If neighbors have objections, based especially in the covenants, to an application to the ARC, isn't it better to give the neighbors a chance to state these from the get-go? This forum gets a lot of complaints from folks who learn only well after the fact that a neighbor is installing xyz, as approved by the ARC, and what was approved is not in compliance with the governing documents (or a strong argument could be made for the same).

-- At the city level and perhaps as a parallel, when developers submit land use applications, typically the application goes first through city Land Use staff. The city Land Use staff tweak the application and then forward the applicat to something like a City Planning Commission. By law the Planning Commission must hold open hearings that have been properly noticed. Neighbors not liking the application get to speak at the Planning Commission hearings. Anyone not liking the Planning Commission decision has the right to appeal to the City Council. The City Council hears the appeal, also in a properly noticed open hearing. All sides get to speak. All this makes sense to me. Even if it never stops a developer from getting what she or he wants. Terrible system but I cannot think of a better one.

-- I know my take on the statute tends to raise the ARC to a new level of authority and makes the ARC's work more intense. But given the complaints that come up here about what neighbors do, and given that ARC problems are a leading cause of HOA lawsuits and even end up making up much of the HOA-based appeals to state appeals courts, perhaps ARCs need to be given more deference. In the alternative, the Board can simply dispense with an ARC and be Thee Authority for approving or disproving all architectural change applications.

-- I am discomforted by people who come to HOAs and condos and instantly want to change the exterior appearance. I remember one applicant noting how the covenants and rules 'oppressed people's individuality.' I on the other hand think that gutting the meaning of "contract" is one of the ultimate oppressions of people's individuality.

Thought I would provide some updates.

The Bard has charged the ARC with full approval and denial authority according to the CCR's.

The ARC typically works with the home owner to make sure and updates are in compliance. So far we have been able to approve 99.9%

The individual I was referencing just wants to stir up trouble. What we decided to do is limit non applicant comments at the end of the meeting and only comment on the applications being discussed at that meeting.

The good news is that the challenging individual did not show up at the last meeting.

Thanks for all your help.

What we decided to do is limit non applicant comments at the end of the meeting and only comment on the applications being discussed at that meeting.

Sounds good to me.

I quoted Art. It was his idea.

Why would election be required?

Hmmm ... I dunno, I thought the purpose of the ARC was to review and decide.

Major issue could get bumped to the board, but the ARCs I know of are decision authorities in most cases.