What is a "structure" to an HOA?

So got a question here. What is a "structure" mean to you? What happens if the HOA determines that 'widget' that's in your backyard that no one else can see, is a structure and needs to be submitted to the ACC for approval?

I just got a letter now from the HOA stating that they are determining the beehive in my backyard to be an "above ground structure" that must be approved. This is quite interesting, because there is no definition of "above ground structure" or anything similar in our CCR's. There's a section that talks about "accessory structures" like playscapes and basketball hoops, but nothing about 'above ground structures.' Additionally, this novel interpretation seems to then open up the HOA to a lot of whatabouts....birdhouses, patio tables, decorative things in people's back yards, etc.

In addition, they stated that they must be removed in order to comply with "the HOA Member Resolution" from our Annual Meeting, and then maybe I can submit a request to hold a hearing to determine if the bees shall be allowed.

Any thoughts?

-------------------
4.1.2 Architectural Committee Review. No Improvements which will
be visible above ground or which will ultimately affect the visibility of any
above ground Improvement shall be built, erected, placed or materially altered
on or removed from the Property unless and until the building plans,
specifications, and plot ,plan have been reviewed in advance by the
Architectural Committee (and, if required, by an applicable Local Architectural
Committee pursuant to paragraph 11.10) and the same have been approved
in writing. The review and approval or disapproval may be based upon the
following factors: design and style elements, mass and form, topography,
setbacks, finished ground elevations, architectural symmetry, drainage, color,
materials, including mandatory wood shake roofing material, physical or
aesthetic impacts on other properties, including Common Areas, artistic
conformity to the terrain and the other Improvements on the Property, and
any and all other factors which the Architectural Committee, in its reasonable
discretion, deem relevant. Said requirements as to the approval of the
architectural design shall apply only to the exterior appearance of the
Improvements. This Master Declaration is not intended to serve as authority
for the Architectural Committee to control the interior layout or design of
residential structures except to the extent incidentally necessitated by use,
size and height restrictions.

This may come down to how your state courts have ruled on ambiguous CC&Rs. Is there a court precedent that says that they rule in favor of the HOA or the homeowner? This is probably a question for an attorney. Absent any other information, I think I would tell them that you disagree with their definition of "above ground structure" and keep your beehive. If HOAs could just change the rules by reinterpreting them, there would be no limit to their power.

Do you know why it is capitalized?

??????????????

I posted my question BEFORE yours came through.

great constructive criticism. I've found "Improvement" defined, and updated twice through Amendments:

------------------------------------------------
"Improvement" shall mean any structure, facility or system, or other improvement or object, whether permanent or temporary, which is erected, constructed or placed upon, under or in any portion of the Property, including but not limited to buildings, fences, streets, drives, driveways, sidewalks, bicycle paths, curbs, landscaping, wildlife habitat improvements, signs, lights, streetlights, mail boxes, gates, storm drains' and storm drain facilities, electrical lines, pipes, pumps, ditches,
---------------------------------------------------

So "including but not limited to" gives a large wiggle room, but its clear in my situation there's selective and targeted enforcement and sure as hell, the HOA will not be able to produce ACC requests for the numerous 'Improvements' around the neighborhood, including the very 'unique' yard art and statues in the HOA President's front yard.

A "structure" is any man-made, non-naturally occurring object built or placed on land where it did not previously exist. It's pretty broad and ambiguous because no language can address all possible variables in any situation. A man-made bee hive is a structure, a hive constructed by the bees is not (in the context of an HOA).

I was thinking the other night about the apparent contradiction in courts' preference for free use of the land in HOAs. Here you have a legal framework (governing docs and state/federal laws) whose provisions are enforced by a board with a fiduciary duty to act in the HOA's best interests. You also have homeowners with no fiduciary duty to the HOA (ie., to their neighbors/business-and-legal partners) who are allowed to do as they please. It's like you try to build this water-tight structure while allowing the users of the structure to knock holes into it. This does not work.

Usually, when I hear structure, I think of sheds, swimming pools, cabanas, and that type of thing, but since you and I both know that beehive wasn't there when you bought your home, it could be argued this IS a structure. At least that would be my position, based on the photos I've seen of a beehive belonging to a now-retired co-worker (he has a small business selling honey).

This is really getting redundant, with you pulling this and that section out of your CCRs to justify your beehive. Everyone will have various opinions on the subject and I hope they're useful to you, but you really need to start preparing for your hearing with the board on this matter. We don't live in your community and it's high time you go to an attorney for help on making your arguments. While you're tussling on the legalities of it all, you might also consider some of the arguments against the thing some of your neighbors bought up during that annual meeting and come up with ways to address those concerns. Even if you think the board put them up to it, you'll need to address it nonetheless if you want to have a chance at succeeding.

STRUCTURE. That which is built or constructed.

I used the Florida Building code definition since we do not have a definition of structure in our documents. So sure, your beehive is a structure based on what I refer to as a structure and using FBC (I know you're not in FL but hey you're just looking for opinions right?).

These bees, man, I am SO GLAD we don't have a beehive issue in our neighborhood!

Here are 2019 and 2015 Idaho Supreme Court decisions that I think give one a fair idea of how Idaho courts think about HOA covenants that limit xyz; when a covenant is ambiguous and when it is not; ambiguities being resolved in favor of free enjoyment of land; and so on:

https://casetext.com/case/eagle-springs-homeowners-assn-v-rodina

https://casetext.com/case/greenfield-v-wurmlinger-1

To say the least, the many other Idaho appeals and Supreme Court decisions that the decisions above cite are instructive as well. Both the above decisions feature the same precedent concerning ambiguities and "free use of the land." From the Eagle Spring decision, with ellipses used for readability:

"Restrictive covenants, which restrict the uses to which a party may put his or her property, are valid and enforceable." ... But such covenants are "in derogation of the common law right of a person to use land for all lawful purposes," so this Court will not construe them "to extend by implication any restriction not clearly expressed in the covenants." ... "All doubts and ambiguities are to be resolved in favor of the free use of land." ... In other words, "restrictions that are found to be clearly expressed in the Restrictive Covenants are to be applied against the free use of land, while restrictions that are not clearly expressed will be resolved in favor of the free use of land." ...

The Eagle Springs HOA won the case at the trial court level on "summary judgment." The latter means there were no facts that were really in dispute. The case law, statutes and application of the covenants is all that is in dispute. The appeals courts agreed that the HOA was correct in what it did and in its legal arguments. From the summary of the Eagle Springs HOA v. Rodina case:

Rodina asserted, among other defenses, that the HOA approved his project and waived the right to enforce certain provisions of the subdivision’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions ("CC&Rs"). The district court awarded summary judgment in favor of the HOA and granted injunctive relief. We affirm, finding that the HOA did not approve his project as built and that Rodina failed to show that a genuine issue of material fact precluded the award of summary judgment against him.

At some point owner Rodina appears to have raised some arguments about ambiguities in the covenants, all so he could keep his fence and wall. But the courts here rejected those arguments. The courts found no ambiguities existed.

For our (my?) purposes in this thread, as I try to teach a bit, what the court decided is not as important as the tools the trial court and appeals courts used in coming to a decision. The courts in Eagle considered ambiguities in the covenants. The courts found no ambiguities in the relevant covenants. The courts therefore rejected this particular defense of owner Rodina. The courts then moved onto the next arguments each side was making.

To me, one of the questions to consider in AdamL1's case is: Would a court find there were ambiguities in the covenant concerning "Improvements"? Maybe.

I post this material to help people prepare for a meeting with an attorney. There's no way one can grasp the meaning of everything case law says without three years in law school, passing the bar, et cetera. But one can often get the gist of general rules case law has made over the years. And one of those rules is: Where there is ambiguity in a covenant, the ambiguity is interpreted in favor of free use of land.

ha. moving is not an option.

Hmmm, so thoughts on defending against a denied application? That puts me as the aggressor, rather than just doing nothing and re-iterating the CCR's about nuisance and that no other member has submitted an ACC request for birdhouses, yard art, basketball hoops, patio furniture or bbq grills. Not engaging them puts them as the aggressor. Thoughts?

A totally different thought . . .

Perhaps you can put in an application for a small shed-like structure in your yard that will instead serve as a beehive shelter or come up with some other sort of method to disguise your beehive (I googled and it is a thing).

You can tell the HOA that you will "relocate" your hives . . . and simply relocate them to a slightly different part of your yard within the "shed" that you construct or disguised as a large birdhouse or back-yard ornamental piece of yard art.

augustin1919[at]gmail[dot]com , as time and interest allow.

Looking forward to the next Bee Hive post with a new angle on how to get it approved. I wonder if the OP will ever consider hiring a knowledgeable lawyer instead of looking for a Hail Mary on this forum that will magically allow him/her to get their way?. At some point you either act or you don't.

I don't doubt that at all. However, based on what has been said it appears the board has dug in their heels and right or wrong they are not inclined to back down. At this point, I seriously doubt if anything said on this forum will help change their mind. Hence my suggestion that it may be time to decide if the problem is worth a lawyer consult. Depending on what the lawyer says, the million dollar question is how much will it cost to be Bee-Keeper? It may very well end up being some very expensive honey.

Good advice.

What did you pay for this advice? Did you hire him to "fight" your HOA? Disregard anything from the HOA until they commence fining then go against them with an attorney,.

Adam has a target painted on his back by the BOD so they keep going after him. I am not supporting Adam as I believe there could be concern about bee hives in residential areas but that said, the BOD is acting like children.

California has a new-found love of pot, marijuana, mary janes, whatever you want to call it.

When Adam first asked for help, I looked up how the State of Idaho, regards bees and people who raise them. Apparently, they like bees like we like pot, so I would take that into consideration.