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

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

JackS20 (North Carolina)
Posts: 271
Posted:
I've only seen 2 types of ARC's.
1. ARC's that are totally subjective and give all power to a 3 member committe to decide it all with no objective rules
2. 60 page long ARC's that have details on everying from types of fencing to number of trees to type of grass allowed, etc.

Our is the first kind. Trying to propose CCR amendment to make them more objective.
Any feedback is appreciated:


Addendum Item 3: ARC Pre-Approval Modernization
Corresponds to Ballot Question 3. Section 6.3 will be replaced with the following:


6.3 Architectural Control.
(a) General Requirement. After completion of the principal residence on any Lot, no siding, fence, wall, or other structure shall be commenced, erected, or maintained upon the Properties, nor shall any exterior addition, change, or alteration be made until plans and specifications have been submitted to the Architectural Control Committee ("ARC") and either approved in writing or deemed approved under Section 6.3(c). The ARC shall be composed of three (3) or more representatives appointed by the Board of Directors. The ARC shall exercise its authority under this Section in a reasonable, consistent, and good-faith manner, and its authority to deny applications is limited as set forth in Sections 6.3(d) and 6.3(e). No work shall commence prior to written approval or deemed approval, except for improvements expressly exempt from review under Section 6.3(e)(8).
(b) Application Process. All ARC applications shall be submitted through the Association's online portal at www.*****.com, or by such other method as the Board may designate by written notice to all Owners. Submissions shall include plans and specifications showing the nature, kind, shape, height, materials, and proposed location of the improvement. The ARC may charge a reasonable application fee not to exceed $30, and increasing 2% per annum rounded to nearest whole dollar to account for inflation, provided that no fee shall be charged for improvements that are exempt from review under Section 6.3(e)(8).
The ARC shall acknowledge receipt of each application in writing within five (5) business days. If an application is incomplete, the ARC shall notify the Owner in writing within ten (10) business days specifying with particularity what information is missing. The thirty (30)-day review period under Section 6.3(c) shall not begin until a complete application is received. The ARC may not use the incomplete-application process as a delay tactic; a second incompleteness notice citing items not identified in the first notice shall not restart the thirty (30)-day clock.
(c) Review Period and Deemed Approval. The ARC shall approve or deny any complete application within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt. If the ARC fails to issue a written decision within thirty (30) calendar days, approval shall be deemed granted by operation of this Section and the Owner may proceed with the improvement as submitted without further action required. Deemed approval under this Section shall be treated in all respects as a written approval and may not subsequently be rescinded by the ARC or the Board on the grounds that no formal approval was issued.
(d) Standards for Approval and Denial. Approval is the default outcome for any application submitted under this Section. The ARC shall approve any application unless it makes a written finding, supported by specific stated facts, that the proposed improvement:
(1) creates a documented safety hazard to the Owner, neighboring properties, or the community; (2) materially exceeds reasonable scale for a single-family residential lot, meaning the improvement is disproportionate in number, size, or visual impact relative to standard residential use as would be objectively apparent to a reasonable person — this ground may not be applied to deny a first or single installation of any improvement type listed in Section 6.3(e); (3) directly violates a specific, written provision of the governing documents, which provision shall be identified by name and section number in the denial; or (4) violates applicable City of Charlotte building code or zoning regulations, which violation shall be identified with specificity in the denial.
No other grounds for denial shall be valid. The following shall not constitute valid grounds for denial under any circumstances: personal aesthetic preference of any ARC or Board member; general concerns about property values unsupported by specific factual findings; the equipment type or energy source involved, including solar, EV, or high-efficiency equipment; the cultural, religious, or national origin of any display or improvement; or any ground not enumerated in items (1) through (4) above.
Any denial shall be issued in writing, shall identify which of the four grounds above applies, shall explain the specific factual basis for that finding, and shall state what modification would make the application approvable. A denial that does not comply with these requirements shall be void and the application shall be deemed approved. The ARC may not issue a revised or supplemental denial after a defective denial has been voided.
(e) Pre-Qualified Improvements — Presumptive Approval.
An improvement that meets all applicable criteria set forth in this Section shall be approved. The ARC may deny an application only upon a written finding that the proposed improvement meets one of the four denial grounds set forth in Section 6.3(d). No other grounds for denial shall be valid for improvements meeting the criteria below. Any denial shall be issued in writing, shall identify which ground applies, shall explain the specific factual basis for that finding, and shall state what modification would make the application approvable. A denial that does not comply with these requirements shall be void and the application shall be deemed approved.
(1) Home Additions & Structural Changes.
An addition or structural change shall be approved when:
A valid building permit has been issued and approved by the City of Charlotte;
The addition meets applicable Charlotte setbacks, zoning, height, and building code requirements; and
Exterior materials match or are compatible in color, texture, and style with the existing home.
For garage-to-living-space conversions: the project must include an exterior door plus a bedroom-sized egress window meeting applicable code. The ARC may not deny a garage conversion that has been issued a valid City of Charlotte building permit, consistent with longstanding community practice since the Association was established.
(2) Backyard Improvements Not Visible from Street.
A backyard improvement shall be approved when:
The improvement is located entirely behind the front yard building line;
The project involves a patio, deck, pergola, screened porch, sunroom, or landscaping feature; and
Where a City of Charlotte building permit is required, that permit has been issued prior to construction.
(3) Energy-Efficient & Utility Equipment.
Energy-efficient and utility improvements shall be approved when:
A mini-split outdoor air handler unit or heat pump is located on the side or rear of the home, not the front, meets manufacturer clearances, and complies with applicable code;
A tankless water heater is mounted on a side or rear exterior wall and meets applicable building and mechanical code; or
A solar panel installation, whether photovoltaic or hot water, is proposed in any location consistent with applicable North Carolina law.
Solar installations cannot be denied for any reason per NC supreme court ruling. For all other energy-efficient equipment, the ARC may not deny an application solely because it dislikes the equipment type or finds it visually undesirable, provided placement and scale criteria are met. A single installation of each equipment type per home shall never be considered to exceed reasonable scale. The ARC may apply the reasonable scale standard only where an Owner proposes multiple units of the same equipment type in a manner objectively disproportionate to single-family residential use.
(4) Fencing. A fence shall be approved when:
The fence is a privacy fence up to six (6) feet tall located behind the house building line;
The Owner provides either (a) a professional survey confirming the fence remains within property boundaries without encroaching on neighboring lots or easements, or (b) signed written agreement from all directly adjacent neighbors; and
The fence complies with City of Charlotte setback, easement, and permitting requirements.
(5) Driveways, Walkways & Hardscape. A driveway, walkway, or hardscape improvement shall be approved when:
Driveway extensions or replacements use concrete, pavers, or permeable materials and remain within property boundaries in compliance with applicable stormwater and impervious surface standards; or
Walkways and front entry paths use brick, pavers, natural stone, or concrete in materials and scale compatible with the existing home.
((6) Roofing, Siding & Paint. Structural roofing and siding replacements using the same or comparable materials as the existing home shall be approved without color review, subject only to the denial grounds in Section 6.3(d).
For any exterior color change — including full repaints, new siding colors, roofing colors that differ materially from the existing installation, and accent color changes to shutters, doors, or trim — the following standards are self-executing and fixed in these governing documents. No separate board action, palette adoption, or ARC pre-approval process is required to implement these standards, and no Board or ARC may modify these standards without a formal amendment to these CC&Rs.
Permitted Colors. Any exterior color is permitted if it meets all three of the following criteria:
guess the post is too long and got cut off
JackS20 (North Carolina)
Posts: 271
Posted:
instead of reading the above wall of text please open this pdf table that shows the major changes and give any thoughts please.
📎 Attachments (1):

⏸ Downloads temporarily unavailable

📄1052115030912952210.pdf(53 KB)
DeanJ
Posts: 1,786
Posted:
Sounds like a law suit waiting to happen. If not recorded and distributed to the owners, there are no standards.
TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059
Posted:
I did not fully read your document. A very quick read had me think of the following:

1. Who are the safety experts and what training or degree do they have to determine if something is safe or not?

Example: We had one lot that wanted an in ground pool and submitted paperwork. The Board at that time said you need a fence around it. The owner said that a fence already existed enclosing the lot. The HOA said you need a second fence around the pool. There is nothing in our CC&Rs that discusses fences around pools. It was all one persons opinion based on perceived safety. BTW, the County said the fence around the lot meets code for a pool. The pool was built and a whole bunch of division was created within the membership, the Board and the ACC.


2. Materially exceeds reasonable scale is subjective. You don't remove personal opinion by having this as a denial.

3. Who has qualifications on the committee to specify if something does or does not comply with code. This is not the Associations responsibility and, if someone went by the Associations approval, didn't get city permits (if required) and something happens - the accusation will be that the Association said it complied with the Federal/State/County/City building code by approving it. I would expect that a court would apply some of the blame on the Association.


The Association are not the police, social workers or building inspectors. Leave those functions to the government.
Additionally, don't try to restate existing code (referencing egress in garage conversions). Code can change and it's not the Associations job to advise the members on building code requirements.

The Association typically only approves or disapproves exterior change requests. To keep personal opinion out of the approval process, get rid of the subjective language.
LoriM15 (Florida)
Posts: 1,009
Posted:
We have an ARC committee appointed by the board (5 members, and the document allows that we can pay an outside consultant to sit on the board if necessary). They have total authority to approve or disapprove any exterior changes to homes (and to the exteriors on the condo sub-association buildings and signage). We have an accompany Community Standards document that is pretty specific about what is allowed and what isn't. We have a list of paint colors, standards for fences, rules for windows, shutters and even outbuildings or generators, etc. The ARB follows the community standards document pretty closely. This is important because they are not engineers or architects or landscape designers. When you give them a document to follow they don't have to be and their decisions are not subjective.

We also include language requiring them to get permits from the county if they are required. It is not our job to police the county standards. We can fine them if they do unpermitted work, but we do not monitor whether the permit is pulled or not before the job is started.

I our state, unless you are very specific with your ARB standards owners can (and do) sue over subjective decisions. If you really want to make a change and not have a committee of three people making all the design decisions, you need to put together something for them to enforce that is objective.
TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059
Posted:
In my last Association we did the specific listing of guidelines.
There was already a list but the ACC did the work for the rewrite.
We did this in the following way:

1) Walked through the development and identified the number and type of violations (not who was violating) currently happening.
2) The committee used that document as a guide to see the reality of the current guidelines (if a majority are breaking the guideline, why have the guideline).
3) Drafted a document showing the existing guideline, a proposed change (if any) and the reason behind the change.

This took a year of work.
The Board took another year to make changes, obtain membership feedback and make more changes based on that feedback.

🎯 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