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

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

MikeB3 (New Jersey)
Posts: 28
Posted:
Hi All,

A few minutes before 10PM at Monday night's BOD meeting, which began at 7PM, a board member's wife submitted a request for a variance to install a 6 ft high stockade fence, replacing their 4 ft post and rail. Our CC&Rs specifically set a 4 ft height limit and require open fencing that allows visibility. A similar variance had been granted last year to a HO whose home backed onto a very busy roadway. Two homes, out of 76, have illegally installed fences.

The problem we have is that it appears that 3 (out of 5) BOD members are interested in getting variances for similar fences and they have a plan to support each other's requests. The next door neighbors and numerous other residents are totally against this type of fence.

The question is, is this legit? Is there anything wrong here or is this business as usual? Many people moved to this community because they liked the look and feel. But some people don't care, and obviously some prefer the taller privacy fences.

Btw, I am the Treasurer (not a board member) and neighbor and I will probably be collecting letters against the variance since my wife is having a fit.

Thanks in advance, Mike
SusanW1 (Michigan)
Posts: 5,202
Posted:
Are you saying that variances are granted by the Board?

And board members, are requesting variances for fence height?

As long as board members are NOT treated any differently when requesting variances, I don't see the issue. (Of course, the board member/applicant would reluse themselves from the vote, if the Board votes on variances)
CharlesH9 (Michigan)
Posts: 123
Posted:
I didn't realize variances could be given against CCR's. I thought they could only be given for rules. Wouldn't CCR's have to be amended? Why not just give variances instead of the trouble of ammending them, it is quite the process I've been told. Just curious, since I am new to this.
BrianB (California)
Posts: 2,820
Posted:
it can be impossible to prove (if the members are sharp), but if they are trading votes on a variance for member X for their vote for a variance for member Y, that's conflict of interest.

Good luck proving it.
GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491
Posted:
Brian's right on about the conflict of interest and proving it. Bad Board members are like cockroaches they run from the light which is why the guy waited till the end of the meeting to ask for it. You need to get your neighbors involved in letting the BOD know that the member's will not stand for it. For a good article on variances see the link below. http://www.imakenews.com/ortenhindman/e_article001107407.cfm?x=bcLh4H3,b4CySVHk

Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions
SusanW1 (Michigan)
Posts: 5,202
Posted:
Please don't call this "conflict of interest" - collusion, deceit, unethical are OK, but this does not fit as a "conflict of interest" here in the strict sense of the definition.
JohnO6 (Georgia)
Posts: 424
Posted:
Charles - some CCRs have within them a section that specifically allows variances to be given to any other section. However, I believe that different state laws governing HOAs/POAs/Condos may or may not allow such CCR sections. So I would suggest first to check the CCRs, and then if such a clause/section exists, make sure it is not in violation of a state law (and of course most CCRs, specify that their documents are may not be in conflict with local, state, or federal law)
SusanW1 (Michigan)
Posts: 5,202
Posted:
From the original post, it seems that 1) variances have been granted BEFORE to others for this same issue and 2) the Board CAN grant variances to the CCR rules.

Maybe he can confirm his particular procedures for CCR variances for us.
MikeB3 (New Jersey)
Posts: 28
Posted:
Thanks for your replies. I reviewed the docs last night and I couldn't find any wording at all regarding variances. There was a Board action within the last year where a household was given conditional permission to install a 6 foot privacy fence. I think this may have been a situation where a new homeowner had already installed the fence and the Board imposed conditions rather than remove the existing work. I can't say whether or not this action was legal. At the Monday night meeting, I asked the President if the HOA had any written records of variances granted over the years, and he said he had a document regarding this fence.

Whether or not we have collusion, deceit or unethical action, we certainly have the appearance of such. Clearly something was up with the waiting until late in the meeting. Members had already left, everyone was brain-numb from 3 hours of purposefully tedious business. Then, all of a sudden, three Board Members and their spouses went into an obviously rehearsed and planned act. The requesting BM actually thought he could vote on this issue since he had it submitted by his wife. When the President nixed this, the request was tabled until the next meeting because the third vote they needed was out of town due to a family emergency.

I intend to communicate with all the members at large and I am looking for the right way to frame my message. I need to be able to explain in a succinct and clear fashion, exactly what is at issue here.

The way things work here in NJ is that the Township requires a permit for fence construction. The permit application is forwarded to the HOA (probably to me at this point) for approval. The HOA requires a permit request to gain HOA approval. Compliant requests are approved as a formality, without Board action. In the one case, after a Board Action, the permit request was approved for a non-comliant 6 foot fence. There are a couple other 6 foot fences around. Owners claim they received verbal approval from the Board. There is no written record. I highly doubt that there is a Township permit. I consider them all to be illegal.

Any thoughts on how I should approach the members? Thanks in advance, Mike
BrianB (California)
Posts: 2,820
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By SusanW1 on 06/04/2008 5:44 AM
Please don't call this "conflict of interest" - collusion, deceit, unethical are OK, but this does not fit as a "conflict of interest" here in the strict sense of the definition.

Just curious susan, what strict definition do you use?

I tend to use this one: A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, insurance adjuster, a politician, executive or director of a corporation or a medical research scientist or physician, has competing professional or personal interests. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill his or her duties impartially. A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results from it. A conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the person, profession, or court system.

By this definition (which, i grant, is not probably your strict definition) completely applies. These board members have a competing interests (upholding the rules versus putting in the fence they want that isn't allowed). I would believe that because they are offering quid pro quo services, they have a conflict of interest. They directly benefit from their decisions.
MikeB3 (New Jersey)
Posts: 28
Posted:
Thanks Brian. To make matters worse, we have the requesting BM and his company doing work on the BPs house and grounds. This adds to the appearance of quid pro quo, even if all this work is performed at market rate or as between friends.
NicoleW3 (North Carolina)
Posts: 2
Posted:
Our board has done something very similar and I wonder about the legality of it. They approved a variance for a board member to get an above ground pool, he was on the board when he received the variance, but when another homeowner applied for a variance for an above ground pool (with similar lot/privacy and use of materials) they were denied on the basis that the board did not want to set a precedence of above ground pools in the neighborhood. Completely understandable that they wouldn't want to set this precedence, but why allow a board member to be above the law and granted a variance? Does anyone think this is unethical?
TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,062
Posted:
Nicole,

Welcome to the forum. It's typically better to start a new topic than restart an old thread (this one is over 4 years old).

This is because laws change and what may have been good advice in 2008 might be bad advice in 2012 and it can become confusing for readers.

🎯 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