Are our CC&Rs in conflict?

In reviewing our CC&Rs yet again I recently noticed a possible conflict:

Section 4 "Off-street Parking" - All Lots shall have a driveway that allows a minimum of two off-street automobile parking spaces within the boundaries of each Lot.

Section 12 "Vehicle Storage" - Parking of boats, trailers, motorcycles, trucks, truck-campers, and like equipment, or junk cars or other unsightly vehicles, and like items, shall not be allowed on any part of said properties nor on public ways adjacent thereto excepting only within the confines of an enclosed garage or other approved enclosure, and no portion of same may project beyond the enclosed area. Parking of automobiles or other vehicles on any part of the properties or on public ways adjacent thereto shall be prohibited except within garages, carports, or other approved areas. Garage driveways shall not be extended on either side for additional parking. For the purpose of this Section, an approved area may be beside the house, but not on a street side, and screened with a six-foot (6') solid vinyl or cedar fence or landscaping enclosure, which screening is approved by the Architectural Control Committee. If the height of the stored item is greater than the height of the front fence, the item must be stored two (2) feet farther from the front fence for each part of a foot the item extends above the fence, and the item must be stored two (2) feet away from any side yard fence for each part of a foot it extends above said fence, but in no case will the item be allowed to be stored if its height is greater than ten feet (10') or length greater than thirty feet (30'). Any variance to allow a deviation to these vehicle storage requirements must be approved in writing by the ACC and all surrounding neighbors. The Architectural Control Committee shall be the sole and exclusive judges of approved parking areas.

Since the emphasized part of Section 12 does not allow parking in the driveway, but Section 4 requires all lots to have parking places for two vehicles, are they in conflict? Maybe it just a logical conflict and not an enforcement conflict: houses must be built with driveways big enough for two cars to park, but that doesn't mean you can actually park there.

".... or other approved areas." - DOH! That would be the DRIVEWAY.
"Garage driveways shall not be extended on either side for additional parking." - DOH!

If I bought a home in your developement asnd was told I could not park a properly maintained registered passenger vehicle in MY OWN DRIVEWAY - I would hide or mortgage all my assets and fight you all the way to the supreme court - if I lost (not likely) I would 'walk away' leaving you with the legal bills.

NO CONFLICT

John,

You should read further. An "approved area" does NOT include the driveway!

your BOD can add driveways as approved areas. the current rules state that an approved area MAY BE XXX... so it could also be other things.

get them to add the language.

"We" do.

Do We?

I'm sure

RE: Section 4 reiterating city requirements. Probably true. The first few sections of that Article stipulate various initial construction requirements (floor area, garage size, roofing material, etc). But construction is complete, and those sections are still there, so they still need to be considered when enforcing the CC&Rs. By itself, I would think that Section 4 implies that parking in the driveway would be allowed. But then comes Section 12.

This is coming up because I have finally convinced the Board to document our policy on parking enforcement. In the past the Board has not wanted to do anything about car parking. Other Board members have argued that we can't prevent people from parking on the public streets, especially if the car is not owned by a resident. They have also argued that we can't prevent people from parking in their own driveways. Thanks mostly to past discussions on HOATalk, I have been able to show that we can enforce the parking restrictions. And because of a couple of recent issues combined with a growing number of complaints about parking, they have finally decided that we should have a consistent, documented policy.

I agree that a person should be able to park the vehicle that they drive every day in their driveway. However, long-term parking (storing) in the driveway is not allowed. We recently had one home where they had a car that looked like it had been dragged home from the junkyard sitting in the driveway for several weeks. Neighbors started to complain, so we started our standard enforcement process. When we got to the certified Demand stage, the owner got belligerent and came in to the Board meeting to try to bully us. He claimed that the car was functional, but it belonged to his teenage son who couldn't afford the gas to drive it (which is why it sat for so long). We told him that the fact that the car was functional didn't matter. It was still an unsightly vehicle, and it couldn't be left in the driveway. He claimed that it was not unsightly (beauty is in the eye...) and if we were going to tell him that he couldn't park it in the driveway then we had better be telling everyone else that they can't park in their driveways.

I have no problems with enforcing the unsightly part (it was god-awful ugly, with spray-painted "racing flames" over several rust spots), but he is basically correct about the other people part. We got past it this time by telling him that we enforce the parking restriction on an as-complaint basis, and if he would like to file complaints about specific homeowners, we would look into it. Haven't heard anything from him since, but because of this the other Board members agreed to let me document the policy.

I think everyone would agree that it would be ridiculously excessive to start sending violation letters as soon as we see any car parked in any driveway or even on the street. Friends/family coming over to visit shouldn't be violations. At the other end, it would also be unreasonable to have cars sitting without moving for weeks at a time. We need an enforcement policy that respects the restrictions in the documents without being excessively overbearing. I've proposed that first the policy continues to be complaint driven. If the neighbors aren't concerned, then neither are we. If a complaint does come in, then we will attempt to verify. If we check several times over a specified time period (say 3 days for driveway, 1 or 2 for street) and it appears that the car never moves, then we will start the enforcement process.

I like to think that this strikes a reasonable balance. I'm still getting some push-back though from one Board member who basically doesn't want to tell people anything about parking their cars (but he's OK with telling them they can't park utility trailers in view).

DwightT

I don't think there is a conflict. Section 4 defines an approved area for parking — "minimum of two off-street automobile parking spaces within the boundaries of each Lot"— and requires a minimum of two spaces.

Your highlighted sentence in the Section 12 states, "Parking of automobiles or other vehicles on any part of the properties or on public ways adjacent thereto shall be prohibited except within garages, carports, or other approved areas." The parking spaces in Section 4 are other approved areas.

Re enforcement, CC&Rs are given strict interpretation, meaning that all ambiguities will be construed against the party seeking enforcement.

I agree that the quoted language is poorly worded. Section 12 is titled "storage" but is concerned with parking.