Do your CCRs have an “esthetics” clause?

Our ARC allows denial based on esthetics alone. For example, one homeowner had a triple parking pad for the three-car garage, while on the board he quietly poured a fourth pad, then when off the board he applied for a 5th parking pad. The ARC denied his application because there were no 5-car pads in the neighborhood. Do your CCRs have an esthetics clause? Do you deny ARCs that are outside what’s usual in your neighborhood?

I agree with Michael, but it would appear your documents aren't helping when it states denials can be based on esthetics alone. Today's board may say they don't like four or five pad garages, but when that board is replaced by another one down the road, they can easily say "what's the problem?" and allow it.

By the way, why didn't the board do anything when the former board member poured the fourth pad? Personally, I'd deny the 5th based on that alone - he/she didn't ask for the permission with #4, so why the hell would he think he'd get away with #5? If he wants to threaten lawsuit, let him and he can explain to the judge.

Exterior change requests should consider the overall design of the community which isn't necessarily based on esthetics. For example, the documents may disallow sheds because they may be too big for the yard or the materials don't hold up very well after years of use. Swimming pools may create landscaping issues or disuse/neglect may result in a huge breeding ground for mosquitos - I know all the talk these days is on COVID, but people need to remember that stuff like West Nile hasn't gone anywhere.

Once you address with this board member, perhaps it's time to reconsider that part of the documents and talk to homeowners about amending it (because your documents probably require homeowner approval.) To replace it, the board could come up with some design standards to be applied to landscaping or whatever you want to apply them to. Your documents may allow the board to enact additional rules as long as they don't supersede the CCRs, so if you want to go with that, you should be more specific on things like colors, materials, and perhaps design. The homeowners should also have a voice in this and every few years the standards should be reviewed to be amended as necessary.

PAVE their yards. My kingdom for an edit button...

It depends on the CCRs. Sorry, but there are HOA's that the ARC does have final say.

This varies from HOA to HOA and state to state but in ours, the ARC is completely separate from the board because the board is the body that would hear an appeal for an ARC decision. In fact, Texas recently passed a law prohibiting board members from serving on the ARC to avoid any conflict between the two groups. In our situation, the board stay clear of the decision process in case there is an appeal.

Back to aesthetics. Our declaration does have a clause that says that changes "must be harmonious" with the rest of the neighborhood. When we were redoing the documents, our attorney told us that clauses such as that are basically unenforceable. Too vague. So when we rewrote the documents, we put in very specific standards in our architectural review guidelines and our rules and regulations.

Instead of relying on "harmonious" colors and the taste of the architectural review board, we now have a list of colors that must be used. We lay out things like mailboxes, driveways, etc. We tried not to leave anything to chance. Yes, it's a lot of work but at least we can try and enforce now.

Our rules for driveways is that they can't be wider than the width of the garage. But our lots are narrow so there wouldn't be room for more pads unless they were in the front yard.

I agree that if someone expanded their driveway without approval they need to have a violation. You don't want to get into selective enforcement.

Sounds like he is creating a parking lot.