Problem with Sheds on Unimproved Lots

Peter,
It appears to me, if he built a ten story home there and used it as a temporary residence, he is in violation.
To me, it clearly says no one can live in anything on the lot that is not his personal residence. I would assume the county, at least, would have interest if he uses this as a residence of any kind, he would have to pay residence taxes, and meet county code.
This wording would be entirely proper for a lake side development and appears to be put there to keep from happening what is happening. This would not be out of line as a neighborhood requirement.
I think it would be proper for the Board to notify the owner, fine him if he is observed spending the might in the building and at some point in the process, serve him with summons issued by a judge.

Peter,
I am sure you know this kind of problem is not new, has been around for as long as I can remember and I first ran across something like this that didn't involve an HOA but just a group of houses on a lake. The more permanent residents wanted to clean up the neighborhood and took issue with the overnighters. They are actually allowed to set standards by a judge and your were right some were grandfathered in. I expect that may happen to you, but I also suspect if you have standards in place you may have authority to cause these violators to conform to the standards. I certainly would get a legal opinion on this because if you grandfather one in you may be forced to allow exceptions to all requests in the future. There may even be a clause in your covenants that states something to the effect that if a covenant is not enforced that does not preclude it being enforced in the future. If there you might be able to use this as leverage to require more from the campers than just putting up a mail box. I also think that a judge would go to the intent of the restriction more than picking apart each little word in a definition.

Yes Susan
A. These lots are restricted to residential use for Single Family, Private Dwellings or Residences designed for occupancy by one family on each lot.

But people have understood the article that states “may grant permission for the construction of a permanent building for storage…provided it is planned as a permanent out building of the Residence when constructed, and is not used as a temporary residence” as allowing people to have things such as sheds and garages. The argument is that WHEN I build my house, it will be part of my residence. The issue is with it being a lake community; some people just want to invest the bare minimum in order to “use” their property. My dilemma is how to justify this when I believe it has a negative impact on property values. Right now I’m dealing with a request to place a shed, no house, just a shed on a lot next to a home valued at $700,000. My lawyer says we have the right to turn it down, but how do I argue when person who just bought the lot says I’m not being fair to him?

I would think you would need hard proof that they are using such structures as temporary residences...

To rule against that person because they could commit it in the future would not be fair to the present day determination. I would say this would become an issue only when they violate the covenants that are in place.

Peter wrote that the article stated it “may grant permission for the construction of a permanent building for storage…provided it is planned as a permanent out building of the Residence when constructed, and is not used as a temporary residence”.

I would think that the issue would not be the building itself, but the person deciding to bunk in it after it is built. If there is proof obtained first hand by the board that a homeowner who had a storage building built on their property is staying there, then I think the Board would be in their right to implement disciplinary against the HOA for their overnight stays (but not for the existence of their building). The part of the covenants they are violating is that they are staying in a "permanent building for storage"... for the Homeowner to come into compliance, they would have to not stay overnight anymore or face action by the HOA.

Thanks for all the input. I agree that action should be taken if anyone is staying over night.
Any thoughts about if they should have been allowed to be built in the first place? I read the “planned as…of residence when constructed” could be taken two ways, one is that if they SAY it is planned then let them build. Another is that in order for it to be truly PLANNED then a plan of the residence must be submitted at the same time as the plan for the shed. Our problem is that others in the past have read it as if they SAY is planned then let them build it. What do you think?