Annual Assessment for vacant lots

I've read similar topics about whether or not there should be a different annual assessment for vacant lots versus lots built on. From what I've read the consensus is everyone should pay the same amount.

In our CC&Rs the topic of annual assessments states that vacant lot owners can't have the annual assessment reduced to less than 25% of the assessment of lots with homes. When the association was transferred from the developer to the current HOA, this issue was never discussed. The first board, all owning homes on their lots, simply decided that all lot owners would pay the same annual assessment. Any thoughts? Was it up to 5 board members who all had lots with homes to make this decision or should it have been voted on by all owners? I'm looking for anyone in the same situation to respond. our HOA transitioned from the developer 17 years ago. at the time the board made this decission there was a 3 to 1 ratio of vacant lots to occupied lots. Today its 57 to 45.

The next issue is the current Board wants to assess only the vacant lot owners an additional $50 to keep the first 6 feet of their lots cut to the ground. I believe this is illegal especially since the CC&Rs already call for the entire lot to be maintained to a standard similar to the Firewise program. It makes no reference to the first 6 feet being maintained differently and I somewhat question the authority of the HOA to demand the lots be maintained to any specific standard since neither the City, County or State addresses the matter.

Thanks for your input as I'm going to hire an attorney to fight the extra $50

I agree with ElleN that there probably isn't a consensus and that your CC&Rs will almost certainly address this.

Whether or not equal assessments make sense will probably depend on what sorts of expenses the HOA must cover and if these expenses can differ depending on if there is a home on the lot or not. Certainly a vacant lot won't have anyone contributing to wear and tear on the streets or using the amenities - in which case a different assessment amount makes sense.

Regardless, it's whatever the CC&Rs say the assessment will be - it won't matter that you can come up with a reasonable explanation of why you should do it one way or the other.

I don't feel there is a consensus. HOA assessments are X vacant lot or completed structure. there is no difference.

Board, not hoard...Freudian slip. There is California case law where owners in the development had to pay same assessment whether built on or not.

Perhaps some HOAs use the "wear & tear" argument to assess vacant lots for less, but then you encounter the fact that many occupied homes' residents might not use any or only certain amenities. And maybe the occupied home just inside the entry to the HOA should pay less than homes at the far end of the HOA because they use such a tiny amount of the roads in the assoc., and perhaps homes with more cars should pay more since they use the streets more, yak, yak.

And when the owner does develop the lots, would they pay extra became of all the heavy construction vehicles, blah, blah.

I think I've seen more than once that since the owners of vacant lots have the same vote as built-out lots, they should pay the same in assessments.

How interesting, ElleN! So... do such owners of vacant HOA lots have a % vote based on their lot size? Or, do they have 1/2 of a vote? Or? And if such an owner sought election to the board, they would not be able to give themselves a full vote? In states like CA, where votes for document amendments and directors are by secret ballot--how is secrecy maintained?

But it all depends on what the documents, probably the declaration, specifies.

Ours are confusing as condos we do have a sq. ft. variable where larger condos pay more in assessments than small ones based on 3 assumptions by the developer: they use more water. They use more gas. Their share of the master ins. policy is more due to their larger sq. ft. So a unit 50sf larger than mine-- at 1,200 sf, pays about $5 more/mo than I do.

And just for fun, we also have "special benefits areas." Nearly 200 Units -- floors 3-25 pay more than the four Units on the 2nd floor and the 15 or so ground level condos. Don't ask about 5% of our HOA that's commercial area--yes, they pay less mainly because they may not use our recreational common area amenities.

So, I guess if an HOA pays for all front yard maintenance, perhaps the lot owner wouldn't pay for that fraction of the dues based on what? Their sq. ft. proportion of the entire HOA? Amenities are different, I think, because the bare lot's property value increases, as with built-out lots, with good amenities and their good upkeep.

That sounds kind of convoluted Kerry. Logic would say that the condos on the higher floors would pay higher assessments to cover the replacement cost of the water pump
to carry water to the higher floors. Just an example.

In condos, there's often a clear difference between voting rights (eg. one vote per unit, regardless of size) and assessments (often based on par value or percentage of ownership).

In HOAs where assessments don't provide any services to individual lots, then it can make sense to assess all lot owners the same amount. Once the HOA becomes responsible for providing services for individual homes, then a variable rate makes more sense.

For example, in a number of HOAs in my area, there are sections of the communities where the association provides things like lawn care and maybe snow removal, and these lots are assessed an additional amount - the homes outside of these sections don't receive these additional services. On the other hand, if a lot is undeveloped, it doesn't make sense to assess a higher amount to the lots that eventually will receive lawn care since that won't happen until after a home is built.

It's really hard to generalize about this stuff since there are so many variations among communities that fall under the umbrella of "HOA" or "condominium".

I agree about CA, Terri. But maybe there's odd stuff in other states whereby Owners of vacant lots have a smaller vote than those of built-out lots. We know that in many (but not all) new HOAs the developer has 3 votes for each of their lots.

I agree with you Cathy, that you seem to be saying that in general there's one vote per lot or unit or home.

And I used yard care in an above example too, as s possible assessment reduction for vacant lots. It's hard for me to think of other HOA services to individual homes there are since I'm in a condo. I suppose the HOA could pay for all of the cable service, but the vacant lot doesn't use any? And trash pick up? Still the vacant lot owner's investment benefits from tidy yards and regular trash pick-up.

It's your math that is failing you.

It's common for condo associations, for one, to have a voting percentage based on square feet. For example, see page 6 of this Declaration:
https://coventrygrp.com/invic/wp-content/uploads/sites/81/2018/10/INVIC-Declaration.pdf

Each vote submitted by an owner is multiplied by the percentage given in the table.