prop. mgr overstepping authority?

I am a new Board president of a small townhome community. Our prop. mgr. of 7 yrs. is responsible for enforcing our rule violations. In the past month, we've had a violation of our commercial vehicle rule (no commercial vehicles allowed in driveways or Guest parking). The vehicle is a normal size pick-up that can fit in the garage, which violator is too lazy to clean out. Within 5 days of the violation, I asked the prop. mgr. to send a "friendly" reminder of the rules so it wouldn't turn into a big commotion. When I followed up 2.5 weeks later (I don't want to micro-manage) I found out the the property manager "forgot" and never addressed it. Almost 1 month later, the resident finally receives a warning letter requesting he comply.

One day later, the Board receives an email from the prop. mgr. informing us that when doing a site visit she was able to discuss the violation w/the resident who acknowledged receiving the warning letter. This should have been a done deal but the property mgr.informed us that in her discussion she was giving him an "option" to cover the commercial logos with large magnets in order to keep the vehicle in the driveway.First of all...magnet option is not in our rules.....second....prop. mgr should have checked with the Board FIRST before offering any option. Third....his garage (which he refuses to clean out) is his option.

Rules should be enforced equally. In my opinion prop. mgr. was offering this guy a "pass" which he doesn't deserve. We have other residents with commercial trucks that follow the rules and this resident should be no different. I feel prop. Mgr. overstepped her authority without checking with Board FIRST. Two Board members are standing firmly by the rules, but we're still going back and forth and it has not yet been resolved. I reminded the Board that "selective" enforcement would set a bad precedent and would make it more difficult to enforce future violators who would also expect a "free pass".

Thoughts please?
Thank you.

Thank you for your insight and validation. Board will address her overstepping of authority. Prior Board members were not engaged so prop. mgr. did whatever she wanted with no questions asked. There's now a new sherriff in town

The manager works for the board; if the board doesn't want to give her that kind of discretion, absolutely talk to her about it and make it clear that you want rules followed to the letter.

Prohibitions against pickup trucks and commercial vehicles came into vogue as a means of keeping out the working class. This was particularly handy after HOAs were forbidden from banning people on the basis of race or ethnicity since many blue collar folks also fell into those categories. And since most governing documents are just cut and pasted from some other set of governing documents, these prohibitions remain even though pickup trucks cost tens of thousands of dollars and a skilled tradesman makes more money than an entry level white collar worker. Personally I can't think of any valid reason to have a rule against them, but there is certainly no shortage of pointless rules in most HOAs.

About recovering from this meaningful faux pas of the property manager's:

Assuming the board-approved options have a basis in the CCRs, I would inform the owner of the truck what the actual, board-approved options are and explain that the PM mis-spoke.

Else I have concerns like BarbaraT1's about coming down on owners of pickup trucks that happen to have advertising on the side. The latter is a "just saying," meant for the archives and not really as criticism of the OP's board.

Just saying:

-- 625 ILCS 5 Illinois Vehicle Code states in part:

Commercial Motor Vehicle.
(A) "Commercial motor vehicle" or "CMV" means a motor vehicle or combination of motor vehicles used in commerce, except those referred to in subdivision (B), designed to transport passengers or property if the motor vehicle:

(i) has a gross combination weight rating or gross combination weight of 11,794 kilograms or more (26,001 pounds or more), whichever is greater, inclusive of any towed unit with a gross vehicle weight rating or gross vehicle weight of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds), whichever is greater; or

(i-5) has a gross vehicle weight rating or gross vehicle weight of 11,794 or more kilograms (26,001 pounds or more), whichever is greater; or

(ii) is designed to transport 16 or more persons, including the driver; or

(iii) is of any size and is used in transporting hazardous materials as defined in 49 C.F.R. 383.5.

(B) Pursuant to the interpretation of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 by the Federal Highway Administration, the definition of "commercial motor vehicle" does not include:

(i) recreational vehicles, when operated primarily for personal use;

(ii) vehicles owned by or operated under the direction of the United States Department of Defense or the United States Coast Guard only when operated by non-civilian personnel. This includes any operator on active military duty; members of the Reserves; National Guard; personnel on part-time training; and National Guard military technicians (civilians who are required to wear military uniforms and are subject to the Code of Military Justice); or

(iii) firefighting, police, and other emergency equipment (including, without limitation, equipment owned or operated by a HazMat or technical rescue team authorized by a county board under Section 5-1127 of the Counties Code), with audible and visual signals, owned or operated by or for a governmental entity, which is necessary to the preservation of life or property or the execution of emergency governmental functions which are normally not subject to general traffic rules and regulations.

-- A Ford F150 has a gross vehicle weight of about 7000 pounds. I do not think it can qualify as a "commercial motor vehicle" as described above unless it is used to move hazardous materials.

Commercial vehicle rule has been in by-laws since 2008 with no issues until now. Owner signed off on and agreed to abide by rules when he moved to community in 2021. It's a cable truck clearly marked with company's name and logo on both sides which includes an emergency light on top of cab. HOA is not banning vehicle, but providing owner option of parking it in his garage (it fits) BUT owner refuses to clean out garage and expects HOA to make an accomodation for his laziness.

Storing junk in one's garage would probably fits the bill of half of American's, so they should be labeled "lazy-ass".

agree

I misspoke. It's our rules and regulations

This:and this:How come the owners have to abide by lawful covenants et cetera and the Board does not?

I think the new sheriff needs a course in HOA law 101.

Thank you to everyone for weighing in.

Our board will meet and discuss a resolution to satisfy all involved.

Resolutions that are so used invite legal action in addition to the usual drama resulting from enforcement of the CC&Rs. If the resolutions contradict the CC&Rs, then the HOA will almost certainly lose the fight and will pay for the privilege.

Some general info:

* Here is what a law firm in Michigan has to say about parking restrictions in condominiums. Much of this is applicable to parking restrictions in general.

* Another article about parking rules in HOAs, this one written from the property manager's perspective.

That's your opinion and you are welcome to it. I, however, chose to live in an HOA where commercial signs on vehicles and RVs parked in driveways are not allowed. That was my choice. I received the documents before I moved in as did everyone who lives in here, including renters.

I can't weigh in on the legality of the OP's rules in their community, but I can tell you we have very similar restrictions in our Declaration (CC&Rs). It is legal in our state. We updated all of our documents last year and our HOA attorney, who is smart, fair and well-respected by our board, reviewed them all and it was approved by the membership.

We can and do send violations to people who park trucks with signage on a regular basis in their driveway. We give warnings and try to be fair about it, but the truck (or car) either goes in the garage or parks somewhere off property. We would accept the magnets covering the signage. We don't discriminate based on what type of business it is so you can't say that we are discriminating against working class people. The guy with the landscaping company gets treated exactly the same as the woman with the wrap on her van advertising the popular cataract doctor in town or her partner with the wrap on his van advertising a local distillery (those are real cases BTW). The biggest issue we have is that our documents define commercial vehicles as over 2.5 tons and most pickup trucks are over that weight. We do not send violations on most pickup trucks (they are so popular we would be violating nearly every other home) but only if they have commercial lettering or our outfitted with ladder racks or other specialized equipment and are clearly commercial. The other big issue recently is the van-type RVs that are too big to fit in the garage. An RV is an RV no matter what the size, so they are not allowed.

Lori:

Rules and Regulations (R&R's)are made by and can be changed by the BOD alone. Owners do not get to vote on R&R's.

Many BOD's abdicate their authority to the MC as they do not want to be bothered by fellow owners.

and third: the rule/resolution cannot conflict with higher governing docs/state law/federal law

LoriM15,

I have been a president of a rather large HOA, worked for three management companies, and for the past 7 years, have own a HOA management company. One of the management company's I worked for was owned by an attorney (who just got disbarred), so I have been involved in helping re-write governing docs and helping them get passed by the membership.

What this involved was reviewing hundreds upon hundreds of association governing documents throughout the country. More important, studying how HOA's have evolved. A number of people moved into communities that discriminated against certain people. HUD stepped in and stopped certian discrimination and made that statement manatory on the cover of CCRs. Banning commerical vehicles for the reason most people describe, IMO, is discriminating against the so-called "blue-collar" worker. The truck is required for people's work, which in turn, pays their assessments. I have no issue with prohibition on RV's and trailers, as they are not required to make a living. In the old days, a person never brought their work truck home, not it mandatory, as they may be called for emergencies. More of these electricans and plumbers don't work for a company, they are independent contractors.

Yes, people move into an HOA because they have certain rules that are supposed to apply to all. Many of these so-called restrictions are at least 50 years old, if not longer. I now managed 62 properties of which at least 30 have governing documents at least 40 years old, and never been updated, all typed with a IBM Selectric. Some of the restrictions that people liked about in a HOA are not prohibited, others need to be addressed.

IMHO

And discrimination against race and color used to be legal.

Just saying

I can see a Board member approaching the owner of a pickup truck proudly bearly the company he started saying "You have to move your truck inside your garage, or outside the community, BUT, before you leave, could you kindly fix my sink".

Yes the topic spun off into a historical perspective of certain HOA rules but I think it's a conversation worth having. As Max stated some of these old rules need to be updated to reflect a more current societal approach. I certainly think that Lori's community's parking rules are a bit too restrictive. But the Board has offered a reasonable compromise.

I believe CCRs are inherently classist. Prohibiting mobile homes, putting a cap on the number of rentals, requiring the maintenance of one's home exterior to a certain standard; disallowing chickens for the purpose of having eggs; disallowing work on one's automobile in the condo parking lot or on driveways; and so on; all tend to keep out lower income folks.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development is not immune from this classism. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) is a part of HUD (HUD Office of Housing in particular). Yet for the FHA to approve an FHA loan to a borrower, a COA/HOA is supposed to maintain the percentage of rentals in the COA/HOA below a certain level (which has changed over the years). That is, the FHA expressly wants a lower, not higher, percentage of rentals. Hence HUD itself, through FHA loan requirements, employs classist discrimination. Some recent chatter on this practice: https://themortgagereports.com/16161/fha-approved-condos-fha-mortgage-rates

If some here are saying that the federal Fair Housing Act should prohibit discrimination against those folks whose income is below the federal poverty level, thus making lower income folks, who meet a certain threshold of income, a protected class, then this is certainly an interesting thought.

Next maybe we'll have the wealthy arguing that the "Earned Income Tax Credit," the "Child Tax Credit" and Medicaid (which help only lower income folks) are classist; discriminate on the basis of income; and should be abolished.

I believe in anti-poverty programs. But I am not ready to say that covenants disallowing "commercial vehicles" (where commercial vehicles are as defined in, say, the Illinois Vehicle Code) are classist.

I reject whatever vague, uninformed definition the OP's board has made up for "commercial vehicles," for a few reasons.

I agree up to a point.

But there are good reasons for prohibiting several of the things you listed, especially in condo communities with large amounts of common area and people living sometimes literally on top of each other:

* rental cap: borrowing limitations as well as the numerous issues created by having absentee owners, including inability to elect enough board members
* chickens: potential noise, smells, and sanitary issues
* work on motor vehicles: noise and damage to common elements

In fact, the rental cap won't keep out people of modest means, it will keep out the investors. I view the rental cap as protecting middle and lower income buyers by allowing FHA financing and not allowing the investor class to snap up all available properties.

When it gets right down to it, home ownership is classist by its nature. If you can't afford to buy, then you're stuck with renting. However, the CC&R restrictions on behavior are classist only if you believe that the lower classes have a monopoly on behaving badly. I've seen too many shenanigans from the moneyed, entitled folks to believe that money equates to class.

But to get back to parking restrictions:

When we amended ours, the attorney recommending rethinking things, because in the recent years there's been a move to having multiple vehicles as well as driving a truck as one's personal vehicle. The prohibition on larger commercial vehicles is due more to size and weight limitations rather than on the signage on them. It's reasonable to revisit parking restrictions periodically to make sure they're still workable, given the limits on parking areas and changes to community demographics.

If the markings on the vehicle are identifying it as a commercial vehicle, then covering the markings rectifies the problem. I think the manager is being reasonable.