💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

JillK3 (Georgia)
Posts: 6
Posted:
I am the president of my HOA in Georgia. We are a fairly small community, 208 homes. There are 5 Board members and no separate ACC board. We recently had an ACC request which the board voted against. Suddenly our property manager says that since the requested item is not specifically listed in the covenant, we have no grounds to deny it. I was under the impression that covenants are purposely vague to allow for interpretation. There is no way an HOA covenant can list every individual item that someone wants to attach to their property. Specifically, this request was for an exterior fireplace to be built on the patio.

My question is somewhat two-fold. First, is it reasonable to expect the covenant to cover every architectural item and if not, we have no control over them being built?

And, my property manager has never taken this stance on an issue so we quite taken aback by it. Is the property manager correct? Several sources are telling me they are not.
KellyM3 (North Carolina)
Posts: 2,239
Posted:
No, it is not reasonable for every contingency to be included in rules defining architectural review. However, your CC&R's should outline or have verbiage that articulates the flexibility needed by ACCs to conduct business and ensure community aesthetic continuity.

That said, if this is a single-family home, why would a patio fireplace be controversial if it's not a home feature that would violate aesthetic norms "from the street perspective" nor seemingly violate other property owners' right to quiet enjoyment?

The property manager disagrees with your ACC decision and is not intellectually supporting you. It's not in the interest of ACC to deny requests that don't interfere with street-side aesthetics, quality of construction (permitting) or don't interfere with neighbors, especially when the CC&Rs don't explicitly deny an amenity.

What is being missed here other than the ACC made a unilateral decision to deny (which may be totally allowed, by the way)?
AugustinD
Posts: 3,698
Posted:
First, per the law, the covenants sometimes implicitly and sometimes expressly cover every architectural item. On the one hand, every architectural improvement may not be specifically listed. But every architectural improvement is going to be address-able, via the covenants, as either something that is reasonably allowed or reasonably prohibited.

Second, if the covenants truly do not address what is in an owner's architectural application, then (a) the owner should not even be submitting an application; and (b) if he/she does then it should be sent back with the message that the application was not necessary.

Third, for something like an exterior fireplace, look for general wording like, "Must be harmonious with the rest of the neighborhood." This can sometimes be grounds for refusing an exterior architectural improvement. If such wording is absent, then the fireplace stays.

Fourth, if you quote back here exactly what your covenants say about architectural improvements, then this would probably yield responses that are much more helpful.

Example:
An owner installs a seven-foot tall gorilla statue on her front lawn. She's a Jane Goodall fan. The HOA's CC&RS, architectural section, allow front lawn decorations that are harmonious with the neighborhood. The Board writes a rules and regulation that says "no decorations" taller than one foot are allowed on front lawns. Would a court say this rule was reasonable? I say probably. The Board issues a violation to the owner. The owner argues that "harmonious" is subjective. After all, says the owner, there are three foot fences throughout the grounds. The Board responds, "Uh huh. We think the fences are harmonious. Fines will be $25 per day until the large chimp is gone." The ball is in the owner's court if she wants to elevate this.
LoriM15 (Florida)
Posts: 1,009
Posted:
Here's a real example. We have a homeowner who put in an ACC application for two things. 1) He wanted a glass garage door. 2) He wanted to plant an artificial hedge in front of his house.

Our ACC denied the first request because our documents specifically say that garage doors must be white or the color of the house. They also denied the second request, even though artificial hedges are not specifically mentioned anywhere in our documents.

The homeowner appealed the denial of the hedge, saying we can't deny because it's not mentioned in the documents. The ACC denied again. We feel that even though the documents are silent on artificial plants, they do say "harmonious to the community". There are no other artificial plants in anyone's front yard in the community. We live in South Florida. The manufacturers say expected life is 5 - 7 years, but that's probably not with the hot Florida sun beating down on it most of the year. We believe the material is simply not appropriate for our community and that it is a reasonable decision to deny his request.

However, you might check with your attorney and see if there is any case law in your state that might help with your denial. We found there was no way to enforce house colors with only the "harmonious" clause in our documents.
KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550
Posted:
Do your covenants have any architectural guidelines at all in them, Jill? Do they say your HOA should have an Architectural Committee?

Following Kelly's approach, I can't see why your Board denied the request. All I can imagine is that there might be municipal restrictions about fire producing equipment. Perhaps, it's not allowed, or that it must be xx feet from the house or the fixtures or trees?? Or perhaps the Owners wants to install a gas line? What WAS the Board's reason for denial?
JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
Jill

What was the basis of the BOD denying the application?
JillK3 (Georgia)
Posts: 6
Posted:
This is the second house this woman has bought in our neighborhood. The first one, which we now affectionately refer to as 'The Fortress', was for her daughter about 3 years ago. The first time anyone knew she was making changes was when the concrete truck pulled up to pour a slab for a patio. The board had to stop that and let her know about ACC approvals. I wasn't on the board at that time but it all started in late October and new board of directors start in November. There was alot of confusion as to what they had approved before we came on. She also sends these hand sketches that for the most part you can tell what she wants to do but they are completely out of context because she has a large hill that comes up to her house and that's the side she was building on. Once it was on top of the hill and not street-level, it became a monstrosity. I can't place all the blame on her. It was definitely a learning experience for us that were new board members but she knows how to give just enough info to get it approved but it won't exactly like that way when she's done. We let her know then that we knew she had skirted around some issues and it would be handled with tighter supervision in the future.

Now she buys a house for herself and the first time we realize its her is when someone sees a lean-to roof being built over the side patio. A cease and desist is issued. All the red flags are going up now because she knew only too well about needing an ACC request prior to any work. Once again it's hand-drawn sketches of the cover she wants over her patio, no dimensions, no finishes, and the last a her 5 pages is a drawing of a fireplace - nothing about where it was going, etc. This house is a patio home so they are fairly close together, on a cul-de-sac. My first concern was any heat coming off the sides of the fireplace because the edge of her patio ranged from 22" to 105" away from her neighbors vinyl fence. The county made her move back to 36" but that's still not very far. Also, the few houses that do have interior fireplaces are gas insert or electric, with no smoke being released. My recommendation that she discuss her plans with her neighbor so they were aware was met with a scathing email about how it's none of your neighbor's business what she does on her property. After getting more details on the type of fireplace, etc., we met with her to look at the space and get a better visual idea of what she wanted. My property manager and I had already argued over her comment about fireplaces not been in the covenant so we couldn't disapprove it. She was at the meeting with the homeowner and made the comment again in front of her, which sent me thru the roof.

I know this is way too far drawn out but my biggest concern is do you have to allow something because it is not specifically listed in the covenant. I attached a pic of what she's done so far. Oh, and she's going to a lawyer if we don't approve it. And there are plenty of covenant violations she can point out throughout the neighborhood.

Thanks for any advice you have!
If someone can tell me the file type, I'll send the pic. Tried jpg, jfif, png.
AugustinD
Posts: 3,698
Posted:
JillK3, would you please quote verbatim the covenant that the board alleges the woman would be violating if she installed the fireplace?

This covenant is all that matters.

Respectfully, HOA Boards cannot do just any old thing they want to do. The covenants give the extent of the board's authority. If you cannot cite any covenant at all to justify prohibiting the fireplace, then your board is out of line.
AugustinD
Posts: 3,698
Posted:
JillK3, convert whatever you want to attach to a pdf file (or multiple pdf files), each under 200 kilobytes, then try to attach the pdfs.
JillK3 (Georgia)
Posts: 6
Posted:
Copy of ACC
📎 Attachments (1):

⏸ Downloads temporarily unavailable

📄1111373386371.pdf(59 KB)
JillK3 (Georgia)
Posts: 6
Posted:
Picture
📎 Attachments (1):

⏸ Downloads temporarily unavailable

📄111138036371.pdf(261 KB)
AugustinD
Posts: 3,698
Posted:
Thank you for the photo and the ACC section of your CCRs (I presume).

Nice lean-to.

I suspect if I saw the whole neighborhood, I would vote to issue a violation for the lean-to.
From your CCRs:

The standard for approval of such improvements shall include, but not be limited
to: (I) aesthetic consideration, (2) materials to be used, (3) compliance with the
Community-Wide Standard, this Declaration, or the design standards which may be
adopted by the Board or ACC, (4) harmony with the external design of the existing
buildings, Lots and structures, and the location in relation to surrounding structures and
topography, and (5) any other matter deemed to be relevant or appropriate by the Board
or ACC.


I think you got her on the aesthetics and harmony.

Your manager is messed up.

FWIW, case law says the fifth criterion is not supposed to give carte blanche to the ACC or Board.
AdamL1 (UnitedStates)
Posts: 559
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By AugustinD on 01/11/2022 11:45 AM
Thank you for the photo and the ACC section of your CCRs (I presume).

FWIW, case law says the fifth criterion is not supposed to give carte blanche to the ACC or Board.

can you cite some of this case law?
AugustinD
Posts: 3,698
Posted:
AdamL1,

Go to the Idaho State Law Library. Ask for the Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes). The Restatement is a compilation of case law nationwide. It summarizes trends in the courts and is regularly updated. Along with a summary, the Restatement cites specific case law, state by state, on each topic it treats. The Restatement has a section on "Common Interest Communities"

In the Restatement, go to Section 6.7 (3). There you will find, as a summary of the case law nationwide, verbiage like the following (or verbatim the following):"Absent specific authorization in the declaration, the common-interest community does not have the power to adopt rules, other than those [designed to protect the common property], that restrict the use or occupancy of, or behavior within, individually owned lots or units.”

One can also google on

"Absent specific authorization in the declaration" "Restatement"

and a bit of the case law will come up. There is much more case law on the subject of when the covenants give the board discretionary power and how the courts say the board has to be reasonable and fair when it exercises this discretion.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

  • ✓ Ask follow-up questions
  • ✓ Share your experience
  • ✓ Get expert advice
  • ✓ Access 350,000 discussions
Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here