Break the rules for just one day?

This is a condo building residential association within a master association 5 building complex. I am the president of our residential association.

An owner called me saying his 70 year old Mom is driving from 15 hours away to visit, and then making a 1 day stop at their unit, then going about her way for another 20 hour drive to her final destinatio the next day.
The owner's mom has a dog, which he claims is medically perscribed to her (although no documents to prove this have been collected and I doubt it). The owner's mom will come in just 7 days from now.

The rules of the property are clear that there are no pets allowed anywhere on the property. But, I really feel for their situation and know it would be a huge disservice to not allow her to bring her dog in for one day.
Normally when something of this nature happens, these are the only solutions I can come up with:

1. Stick to the rules and strongly advise them not to do it.
2. Stick to the rules and tell them if they did it, it would result in a fine of $xx.xx so it's up to them whether to do it or not.
3. Chose to allow them since this situation is unique.

Is #3 and option? If so, who choses which options - does it have to be a board decision?
Justice is telling me to tell them NO, but grace says just this one time.
They were respectful enough to call in and ask rather than just going ahead and doing it. Clearly they are good people to some measure.

Master association declarations, Residential Declarations & Rules about pets all attached to the PDF.

Thanks!

Give them a warning, in a day it will be cured.

There is literal and intent. This is a case where it is not literal but intent. The intent of the rule is to make sure no pets use the common areas as a bathroom. If you own a pet then take it outside the "gates" or keep it inside the home. I think if your translating this rule to be no pets on common area period it's basically saying no pets allowed anywhere.

Our violation process starts out with a friendly reminder and escalates to hearing/fines after 2 warning letters.

Visiting pet would be gone before the friendly reminder is even mailed.

Your Section 18 of your R&R's specify an exact location when your, I assume, CCR's state with board approval. Your R&R's may be overstepping and may be unenforceable.

So, may we assume some owners have inside cats, but no dogs, since dogs need to go outside on a regular basis?

If so, then certainly practice has permitted the transport of a cat in a carrier through the common areas. Perhaps the dog is small enough to be brought into the unit this way.

In any case, doesn't a violation require someone complaining? Wouldn't a reasonable response to the complaint be, "Yes, you're right. I'll be sure it's addressed." And then placed in the circular file?

Wouldn't a judicious reply to the question be something along the lines of, "The Board requires a complaint to be made before acting, and focuses enforcement action toward making sure it doesn't become an on-going problem."?

Yeahbut...

In condos it's impossible to get a pet into a unit without taking it through the common elements, and the association does have the ability to regulate what happens in the common elements. And it's almost impossible to contain pets entirely within a unit - noise, odors, damage, etc. will often go beyond the bounds of the unit.

Other areas may be different, but where I live it's almost impossible to find communities that ban pets altogether. People who want to keep animals - for whatever reason - are spoiled for choice. It's people who are afraid of or are allergic to some kinds of animals are the ones who can have problems finding housing.

Just guessing here, but based on the wording of the case law, it may depend on the form of the ban - ie. is it in the CC&Rs or is it in a policy or rule adopted by the board?

I think that it would be harder to overturn a ban in the CC&Rs, due to the higher priority of the CC&Rs and to the fact that they're disclosed to buyers (and rules/policies may not be).

I like the idea of others, Max, Pat, etc. to simply send a warning letter to the unit owner once the dog is on the premises. Also agree that the wording in the documents in odd, vague, etc.

In CA, any HOA, including condos must permit one pet: "Civil Code §4715. Pet Prohibitions. (a) No governing documents shall prohibit the owner of a separate interest within a common interest development from keeping at least one pet within the common interest development, subject to reasonable rules and regulations of the association. This section may not be construed to affect any other rights provided by law to an owner of a separate interest to keep a pet within the development. (b) For purposes of this section, “pet” means any domesticated bird, cat, dog, aquatic animal kept within an aquarium, or other animal as agreed to between the association and the homeowner."

Our multi-story condo permits two dogs, two cats, or one of each. I'd say that about 25% of our residents have at least one dog, many have two.We do have very strict, but reasonable rules about such pets.

Leash! Leash!! (Although I do chuckle at the idea of a land-held lease...)

I would like to also learn more about this. I am not personally in favor of the current pet rules. Others living in this building for much longer, are though.
How can I prove to them it's overstepping? (Sorry for the double post, I'm fairly new here.)

See my other post above for some citations from Colorado and Alaska on this point. These decisions from Colorado and Alaska of course are not binding on Illinois. Still, I think they are likely helpful.

I think these Ohio and Connecticut court decisions concerning flat-out bans on items in the common area are also worth your review, to sharpen your understanding of the legal principles involved here:

Tallis v. Woodrun Place Unit Owners' Ass'n
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County
Jun 27, 2006
https://casetext.com/case/tallis-v-woodrun-place-unit-owners-assn

Grovenburg v. Rustle Meadow Assocs., LLC, 165 A.3d 193, 174 Conn. App. 18 (2017), https://cite.case.law/a3d/165/193/

I did a quick, advanced layperson's check of Illinois case law and turned up nothing on disputes about pets where per the CCRs, board approval was involved.

I got the outcome on the Alaska decision above wrong. Alaska is somewhat distinguishable, as the ban on TV antennas pertained to common area usage and not the use of the interior of dewellings. Still both the Colorado and Alaska decisions are worth your review, in my opinion.

Tell the Board that you think the COA attorney should weigh in on this. State that you know you are only a layperson, but you have been made aware of the Colorado and Alaska case law above, and you are wondering if the HOA is correct to impose a flat-out ban.

a complaint or an observed violation by leadership/management.

Stick to the rules but recognize the law. A therapy or service dog is not a pet. Your governing documents pertaining to pets do not apply.

You are not required to verify a note from the doctor (you may with a therapy animal) so, under the circumstances, I would just take their word for it.