Ambiguous CC&R's

Started by JeffD4 • 7 replies • 1604 views

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

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

JeffD4 (Texas)
Posts: 9

Posted:

I understand that the developer purposely writes in ambiguous language so as to not exclude any potential buyers when they create the CC&R"s but I would like some interpretations on the following clause that is being questioned by a resident.Please help as our Board is split. "No commercial type vehicles ,trucks,campers,house trailers,mobile homes,RV's or camper trailers shall be parked or stored in the Subdivision except in an enclosed garage ,carport, or visually screened from the road and adjacent property owners as much as possible".
What does "as much as possible" include ? Who interprets what it means?
The developer is gone and one resident has expressed concern that a 5th whheel camper protruding from behind a garage is in violation. If we change this with a vote of the entire membership to prohibit all these altogether do we need to Grandfather the ones that are already here ? Do we Grandfather everyone that purchased property under the old clause as well?

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

I would check your documents further for a clause that gives the board the authority to "interpret" the ambiguous portions.

Ours states it this way:

Section 7. Board's Determination Binding. In the event of any dispute or disagreement between any owners relating to the property subject to this Declaration, or any questions of interpretation or application of the provisions of this Declaration or the Bylaws, the determination thereof by the Board shall be final and binding on each and all such owners.

Now, keep in mind that, as boards change, so might their interpretations or applications of various "ambiguous" language.

But, if the board is consistent, it can at least set some guidelines.

So, "as much as possible," is pretty much what your board determines it to be.

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

Oh, and for the record, if I were your board, in the case of the 5th-wheel camper, would simply ask the camper owner to "screen" the protrusion. That should be able to be accomplished fairly easily and inexpensively.

PeterV1 (Virginia)
Posts: 18

Posted:

Ours state: , “and are discreetly screened either by shrubbery and/or trees so as to be reasonably out of sight of the roadway. “

We have treed lots, so it is not as big a deal. I think it should be what the majority interpret it to be.

JeffD4 (Texas)
Posts: 9

Posted:

Thanks we have asked the 5th wheelowner and he replied that he feels that under the CC&R"S he bought under that is screening the camper " as moch as possible". If we vote toban all RV's do we need tograndfather the current ones?

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JeffD4 on 03/13/2009 9:00 AM
Thanks we have asked the 5th wheelowner and he replied that he feels that under the CC&R"S he bought under that is screening the camper " as moch as possible". If we vote toban all RV's do we need tograndfather the current ones?

Well, fortunately for you, his "interpretation" doesn't matter.

It's the board's final say. If they don't feel that the end of it sticking out is NOT "as much as possible," then that's what he has to deal with.

The board would simply confirm their ability to do that, then send him a letter recommending that he either install additional screening around it....or remove it from the property.

That would be his alternatives.

But, if you DID change the CC&Rs, you WOULD have to grandfather the current ones.

That still does not solve the screening issue, however.

SusanW1 (Michigan)
Posts: 5,202

Posted:

Can more landscape (bushes, etc) be added to the screening area. That requirement would fit the "as much as possible.'

If nothing more can be done, then the homeowner has done "as much as possible."

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Jeff,

Is changing the CCRs to ban these type vehicles something that the majority of the members want? If so, then I would say go for it. However, whether the CCCRs are changed or not, the BOD needs to interpret that provision to state exactly what "visually screen. . .as much as possible" really means. If that CCRs restriction is changed to state no campers (or whatever) the interpretation is still needed for all those members who already have these campers. And, yes, they should be grandfathered in; however, they should be told that if they no longer own the camper they now have they cannot purchase another one and keep it on their property. The grandfather clause only applies to the vehicle owned at the time of the change and only applies to the current property owner.

🎯 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