Amendments that interfere with previous rights?

You do realize that sooner or later you're going to have to go to an attorney with some of these questions, don't you? We can guess what it means and we may be right, but most of us ARE NOT ATTORNEYS! It's not always a good idea to get legal advice from the internet, especially when we don't live in your state.

But since you asked (and I hope Augustin weighs in on this because he has a knack for this stuff), here's one person's opinion. First of all, context is important - this portion begins with "Any amendment of this Master Declaration approved in the manner specified above shall be binding on and effective as to all Owners and their respective properties notwithstanding...." How does your community go about amending the documents - usually a significant number of people (say 75% of homeowners) have to approve, and there may be other requirements relating to things like if a special meeting has to be called, can one appoint a proxy to vote on this (which is another can of worms if you've seen other discussion on the use of proxies). etc. Then I'd have to see the original CCR and what the amendment is addressing.

Regarding "allowed use," consider the intended use of your home and the land it sits on. This isn't a landfill or car lot - it's supposed to be a place your and your family live in and enjoy, and you should be able to do it without intruding on the rights of your neighbors, who also live in and want to enjoy their property. The keyword to this may be "reasonable" - for example, if your home has a backyard, it would be reasonable for most people to assume homeowners want to enjoy it (a place for kids to play and get-togethers with friends and family). If we're talking about patio furniture, it would be reasonable to expect people to use such furniture because it's designed to be used outdoors, as opposed to the stuff you put in your living room.

I suspect this is about your beehive again, so what's your real question?

Also not a lawyer, but I believe an amendment could provide additional restrictions if the homeowners agreed to it.

In fact, come to think of it, we approved an additional restriction about five years ago and it went through the normal procedures (75% of owners had to vote Yes). It's possible that your CC&Rs or your state may require that a more stringent amendment would need unanimous consent - and I can see the reasoning for doing it that way - but in my state it's the normal super-majority required for any other amendment.

-- Does the Declaration define the term "the Property"? I am wondering if this means strictly common area.

-- Is there a "uses" section in the Declaration, saying for example that no rentals are allowed (or maybe rentals are allowed by permission of the Board)?

-- Either way I continue to think an attorney could argue that your beehives, if compliant with the City Code, do not violate the covenants, because of the covenants' express reference to the City Code on the subject of nuisances.

-- I agree with others that this is becoming repetitive. I continue to recommend waiting for the HOA to make a substantive move on this issue, like a letter from the HOA's attorney threatening suit.

In general, Board-created rules may not be more restrictive than covenants or bylaws.

I think you would have to post your covenants (with name of the HOA and other identifying information redacted) for people to do more than guess about the wording of the covenants. And guessing is time-intensive and annoying.

I get the feeling you are on the warpath, on account of the bee hives. I know you would not be the first. But do keep in mind the reality of the situation: You lost the election. To force the board to abide by the covenants will require an attorney and threats of lawsuits.

You're going through a nightmare now with the bee hives. You have become studious of CC&Rs and HOA law in general. Why do you think Boards do not do the work you are doing and often, do not comply with CCR's and HOA law?