Mistaken modification approval

Observations:

-- Jane Oblivious may have a cause of action (meaning viable yada lawsuit) against both John Jerk and the HOA.

-- That Jane was on the board at the time of the approval is not all that relevant, IMO.

-- John Jerk relied on the HOA's approval when he modified his yard.

-- Harsh reality: The modification has been discovered to be causing damage to Jane's property. Even if it were something older on John's property that was causing damage to Jane's property, Jane may be positioned to legally ask and receive a remedy from John and possibly, the HOA. This is because the "something older" may have become a bona fide nuisance.

-- The violation of city code should be investigated. Would the city force John Jerk to correct the violation? Jane Oblivious should call the land use department and find out.

-- Messy messy. I expect there to be no hard rules from case law et cetera to resolve this situation. Attorney fees could cost a fortune.

-- I recommend the three sides use professionals and the city (land use department) to figure out what will stop the damage. Then proceed to formal mediation. Why? Because the attorney fees here will kill everyone.

-- Washington statutes or the HOA's governing documents might possibly require either mediation or arbitration before going to court. All parties should find out.

Margaret,

The project would need to remain "approved" by the HOA for neighborhood purposes. However, city code will supersede your HOA approval and is a city/owner issue that should be investigated since there is harm being done.

It is interesting (and I've not thought of it) that HOA boards can, in good faith, approve a project that causes unforeseen circumstances/damage to neighbors that cannot be predicted and there be confusing options for remedy.

I tend to think this issue is to be settled by the town and then mediated between neighbors since the negatively affected neighbor has a right of quiet enjoyment of their property.

Thank you, everyone. I figured the answer would either be arbitration or let City Code Enforcement deal with it. I suppose the first step would be to let all the parties know what's going on. Maybe "John Jerk" would just fix it if he knew it was a problem, to avoid trouble with the City.

I was vague in an attempt to focus on the principle instead of the specifics, but if it helps, here's the story. "John Jerk" rents out his house. Three years ago, the tenants had too many cars, and they were all apparently very bad drivers (frequently drove over neighbor's lawn). "John Jerk" asked if he could remove the grass between his driveway and the property line and replace it with expanded driveway. His property borders a long joint-use driveway. Both joint-use driveway houses were on the board at the time and thought extra driveway would improve the situation so they approved the project--but it was not a very detailed plan. The submission was literally just "change the grass area on the side of the driveway to the same type of concrete surface." So "John Jerk" removed the grass and poured driveway right up to the joint-use driveway, with no joints.

Now there are new tenants. Cars are no longer a problem, but they use the extra driveway space for basketball and storing unsightly items. So "Jane Oblivious" has been filing multiple violation complaints and now says that the expanded driveway was improperly installed and is damaging the joint-use driveway. She wants either the original grass back, or at least a narrower strip. She hasn't demanded damages be paid for their joint-use driveway (my untrained eye doesn't see any damage), but I'm anticipating the future of a deteriorating neighbor relationship.

Our CC&Rs do say, "Review and approval of any application pursuant to this Article is made on the basis of aesthetic considerations only and the Reviewer shall not bear any responsibility for ensuring the structural integrity or soundness of approved construction or modifications, nor for ensuring compliance with building codes and other governmental requirements, nor for ensuring that all dwelling are of comparable quality, value, or size or of similar design."

So it would be easy to tell "Jane Oblivious" that if she thinks the driveway was improperly expanded, she should bring it to the attention of Code Enforcement.

However, our plat conditions specifically say that direct vehicular access from the joint-use driveway to "John Jerk's" lot is prohibited and the expanded driveway made it possible to drive from the joint-use driveway onto "John Jerk's" driveway. So it seems to me that the project was mistakenly/improperly approved and the HOA may owe someone something for having approved it. Really, it should have been denied just on aesthetics because the "parking lot" it created is really out of place in our neighborhood...but we have a history of board members preferring "common sense" over governing documents.

The second home using the joint-use driveway has changed ownership in the meanwhile. They haven't been involved in any of this. There is at least a 3-way language barrier in this situation--I haven't met the tenants so it's possible that's a 4th language. Our CC&Rs say that joint-use driveways are the sole and undivided responsibility of the owners served by them--the HOA has no maintenance responsibility.