negative economic impact

I own a lot and sit on the HOA board in a new subdivision of almost 100 parcels. There is only 1 house that has been erected, with only 2 more underway. The covenants state that the ARC should consider whether any new submission would have 'negative economic impact on any other lot within the subdivision'. Also, they speak of being 'architecturally compatible' Beyond that, there are very few restrictions (no mobile homes, etc.) These are very vague phrases. Is there anywhere I can go to get a better definition of the terms? Any precedence?

Thanks for the reply. I understand what you are saying - but it's not a problem with the developer. All the lots were sold, and the control passed to the board, 5 years ago. I was nominated at the last homeowners meeting, and voted in by a majority of the members (actually, all present). There are a total of 8 people on the board, including the secretary and treasurer. There are 5 on the ARC, including one who is also a member of the board and 4 who are spouses of board members.

I am, and have been for almost a year, trying to start building a house that has a construction cost of almost half a million. Full blueprints, plot plans, etc. were submitted to the ARC (and I have all state and local permits to proceed). The construction cost is almost identical to that of the one existing house, and also very much in line with line of the other 2 under construction (I have discussed it with them). I have also shown the plans to all my immediate future neighbors, who have no problems with the house. The issue, I think (and this has never been documented) is that it is a log house.

The restrictions are: 1400 sq. ft or better (my design is 2100 sq ft) and no trailers or double-wide/manufactured homes. Nothing else, other than the 2 vague phrases, except for limits to the footprint as required by DWQ and CAMA regulations. According to the denial letter, the 'negative economic impact' is the reason I am being blocked. The ARC can, according to the covenants, promulgate rules that the board must approve, and that has not happened. No other definitions for street appearance have been proposed to the board or approved by same. So it is wide open. At the last HOA meeting, the members asked that the 2 phrases be defined, and the ARC has not done that.

My plans were in front of the ARC for 3 months, without any word until I was ready to build, and then I was blocked. I had also tried to discuss it with them for over 6 months, but the committee members would not respond. This has caused me to commit almost $50K, knowing I met all restrictions and having no word, assuming I was good to go.

But the issue is well beyond my personal case - it is how to spell this out better for the other 90+ people who will be building in the future, so they will not go through the pain I have. If the ARC will not provide definitions, I feel the board must, to do the oversight it is required to do. So I'm looking to see if these terms have been defined by other HOAs.

DavidS25,

Thanks for your 2nd post. You originally stated you are a "new subdivision" and in your 2nd post you clarified control passed to the Board 5 years ago. Not exactly new. 8 People on the Board? What would your BOD do if the Board vote was 4 to 4? Hmmm....

The detail you provided in your 2nd post explains things in a very different light. One of the things that I find interesting is that 5 years passed and only 1 home out of 100 lots been erected. Be that as it may, it seems that your log home will be in contrast to the style of the other homes in your development. Your neighbors may believe the style if fine but if the covenants permit the HOA Board and ARC to say otherwise, the opinion of the neighbors is meaningless. Unless of course the owners petition and amend the governing documents to stipulate different covenants. That probably requires a 2/3rd's or more vote out of the 100 lot owners. Go to town on that one.

Anyway, you got a denial because of the "economic impact" your home design will have on the development. Obviously they are looking for a home that is similar to the one that is already erected, and in lines with the aesthetic they want for the other 90+ lots. A log home is obviously not what they are looking for, but who knows there real reason. Doesn't sound like they are entirely sure themselves. A log home in my colonial style home subdivision/development would be in contrast to the setting. If your development is heavily wooded, or more of a natural setting than a log home may be a fit. A log home may also be a fit if your lots are very big, and the eventual landscape may shield the view from one lot to the next and provide each lot with the opportunity to create distinct/unique homes from each other. That of course would require some vision and tolerance until the community matures.

Are there other log homes in your surrounding area?

Since you are on the Board why dont you make a motion to discuss, or speak with the Pres. and Board to add the approval process time-frame and requirements of ARC to the agenda. Since the terms are not clearly defined the main purpose should be to get everyone to define the terms of street appearance for the entire community. Take that approach and maybe you'll get somewhere.

If you hit a dead end on the matter than you will have to take the bull by the horns and raise the topic at the next mtg of the Board yourself.

Hi DavidS25 - There are CC&R's, at least according to your 1st post. You stated, "The covenants state that the ARC should consider whether any new submission would have 'negative economic impact on any other lot within the subdivision'. Also, they speak of being 'architecturally compatible' Beyond that, there are very few restrictions (no mobile homes, etc.)". Lord knows the basis for your denial, especially given that there are log homes in the vicinity. Thank you for clarifying that. Perhaps some are denying because you need to make a "donation", so to speak?

In my HOA if an owner wants to expand their home, a hearing is scheduled for the borough to discuss granting the modification and a notice is sent to all those within 200 feet for them or their attorney to attend and object. If they don't show up, they don't object. Maybe within that type of process you can speed the plow? But you have been denied so it seems it's back to the drawing Board. As Paul told you, your association is different, so not sure if you'll find anyone with wording that defines negative impact. I would think it would mean a modification or construction that will not improve, or will have an adverse affect upon the value of the development.

I like your idea of notifying, and if they don't show (or respond), they have no issue. Thanks. I'll try it.

And yes, my bad - there are CCR's. I was thinking of the CCR being a well defined set of criteria. Ours is only the minimum standard, but that is still a CCR. You're right.

Thanks a lot for the comments.

DAVE