Parking Compromise

We have a no street parking rule from sundown to sun up in our single family, 225 home subdivision. There are a few members who have more cars than their garage and driveways can handle and/or it's too inconvenient to be swapping vehicles all the time.

As a board we don't want to keep fining people or worse especially how tight money is all around. We also want to enforce the rule. So what do you think of a monthly fee for a street parking permit?

Tony:

Sounds to me like you have come up with a good solution to this issue.

I would imagine the owners would rather pay a fee versus continuing fines.

As you stated this was a rule on your property I would think there would be no need to change your documents simply make a change to the current rule including the imposition of a fee for those parking a vehicle on the street.

Maybe the fee should be per vehicle per month.

Under many by-laws the Board has the ability to amend the rules and regulations.

Good luck and Happy Holidays.

Thanks for the replies...
Our CCRs say this about parking-


And they say this about rules-


Parking has always been an issue for no reason other than people tend to park on the street. (Streets are owned and maintained by the city) For the most part people try to avoid the fines by claiming the vehicle doesn't belong to them or their household. This is an effective defense because rarely can the vehicle and individual be identified together by the MC.

We know where the vehicles belong but can't really prove it. Even if we could the fact still remains that parking is at a premium for some folks. People are breaking the rule and the board can't ever seem to effectively enforce it so instead of swimming against the tide why not permit it for a fee??

Tony,
I take it you have taken over from the declarant and he is no longer attached. That means you all have to decide about what the declarant declared. Times change and that is why I say find out more about your options and there appears to be plenty, at least the opportunity to find out how folks feel. Parking is always touchy and the more open the BOD can be and the more inviting, the greater your rewards may be. There is always talent in these associations going to waste because the right button has not been pushed. But it's your BOD and you all have to decide. It seems sort of odd that you would ask for options and what you are looking for is approval to charge this fees, which may be the best thing to do, I don't know.

I sure would look at the last line of Section 4.4.

What is this MAY be recorded? From what I read iof you all change anything it MUST be recorded and that means in the court house and included in your original documents on file. Have you ever compared the original with what you all have, are they the same? Just a feeling.

Tony, Declarations and Rules and Regulations are two very different animals. The way I read this is that it is the intent to have "No on Street Parking" in which case you will more than likely have to amend your Declarations to allow it. Section 4.4 which you posted clearly states that: and SHALL NOT be inconsistent with this declaration. This means you can't write a Rule to get around the Covenant.

Or if the parking regulation cannot be enforced in your area because the streets are publicly owned; then the Covenant is Null and Void and anyone can park on the streets subject to local parking laws and IMO it would be improper and possibly illegal to charge anyone. The place to start is with local authorities and/or your Association attorney to find out just what the HOA's rights are.

BTW: There has been case law quoted here several times that would support an Associations rights to enforce the Covenants even on public roads against Association members. You can use the search feature to find them.

Tony,
It appears you have your answer and intend to abide by your attorneys decision.

Personally, I think Glens' explanation carries as much, if not more weight.

I agree it is a reasonable idea, but, by your own admissions, you refer to having to change the restrictions back in the future. Wvwn if your intent is to give this a trial run and note it in your minutes as such, and set a time limit for the test; even then I would have some doubts because this is setting precedence to modify all the covenants without Board vote.

On the other hand, worse things have been done for far less reason.

IMHO, Glen is right.

Tony,

IMO, Susan may have hit the nail on the head with the "as much as possible" phrase in the CCRs. Perhaps the board can inform those members who have more cars than spaces that they can park on the street with no threat of being in violaiton. However, I would not be so considerate of those who feel it's just too inconvenient to be swapping vehicles. That's just too ban!! Street parking is usually very limited in condo assn's so that the board shouldn't have to worry about members' "convenience".

Tony, your BOD is going to do what it's going to do and nothing posted here will change that. But just because "some feel" the Declaration is void don't make it so. I would urge you to get an opinion from the HOA's attorney or better yet amend the document. Otherwise somewhere down the line someone is going to get upset, maybe even over something totally unrelated and the HOA could find itself involved in expensive and needless litigation. If the majority "feels" that it is "Null and Void" then let them sign their name to an article amending it, and file it with the county.

Tony,
I think Glen is dead on, and I second his advice and council.

From looking back over your posts it seems evident that we don't see the problem the way you do. Glen is saying, if you continue the way you are going, you are likely to create a problem in the future. I can assure you his conclusions are not based on some whim or personal preference. He knows some stuff and he has given the advise after consideration. You, of course don't have to take this advise but I would comment that if part of your reason for not agreeing is because you all can't get a quorum together to amend the documents, you also have that real problem that needs addressing.

Well, my only comment regarding that is, it will come back and bite someone on the rear quarters one day.

Whoops, typo,
Meant to type Michele instead of Mary.

Tony,
Well, you have the Board and maybe three more that are interested. Many have started with less. Our answers have to be directed to all the folks that come on here and read and post. You are old timers and have experienced your own set of HOA devils, hence your conclusion. We have 65 owners in a condo. We have maybe four units that are full timers, and recently got a full time member on the board. Our active participants are maybe 15 units, and we can get some stuff done, that needs to get done. We agree totally on very little, we do not hesitate to speak our mind and we vary in number a little. We have owners that have been owners for over twenty years and don't participate at all. But, we have a web site, owners know when they come here they can expect to hear from our little group of merry men and women and they know where to go to find answers.
We know we are not going to get all to be involved, I don't think anyone feels no noise means no problems. This buffer of a Board and a few owners showing interest has circumvented many nasty problems. One thing, we are so visable they can bounce off us and quiet their concerns and they know they are being heard. We are far from perfect and in the long run may be just another way of conducting business vrs the no noise, no problem operation. It's a tough time to be an HOA and God knows there are no two alike. Man you should hear us argue.......