MoeM (<Click to Select State>)
Posts: 12
Posts: 12
Posted:
Some months ago the architectural committee denied an application for rooftop photovoltaic solar installation on grounds that were interpretted by the owner as being aesthetic, altho the specific grounds for denial were not enunciated. The denial was as mandated by bylaws (in writing and within 30 days). The denial included several comments, that a) a differently configured plan would be approved, and b) the committe needed more technical information regarding the proposed installation.
Bylawas state that if the HOA has neither approved nor disapproved in writing of an architectural submission within 30 days, approval is not required and the owner is free to commence the work as if all provisions of the submission process had been met.
Five months later, the owner submitted a second application. The application was sent certified/return receipt. The return receipt was signed, but not dated, by a management company owner/employee. The US Postal Service web site shows a delivery day and time—within business hours at a POBox. An email was sent to the owner confirming delivery by the management company principal a day or two later.
1. which delivery date is the legally effective one:
- USPS timestamp of delivery to HOA agent postal box
- signed but undated return receipt
- date of email sent by HOA agent?
The HOA failed to deliver to the owner either an approval or formal denial within a 30 day period as measured from USPS timestamp. A board meeting occurred on the 30th day from the date of the email during which the application was discussed with the owner present. During the meeting it was evidenced that:
- the architects denied the application (no grounds were given, only implied as aesthetic)
- the architectural committee chair indicated but did not explicate disapproval of the project
- another architectural committee member's objections were neither responded to nor taken up; this member stated that s/he was not included in any prior committee deliberations
- although subsequent owner/HOA conversation regarding project details has ensured, the HOA has not in writing, or explicityly, approved or
denied the second application, even within the "second" 30 day timeframe as measured by the date of email acknowledgement of the original submission.
2. given the HOA failure to respond in writing within either date timeframe, is defacto approval given to proceed despite architectural committee objections as either previously written on the first application or for any other reason?
Bylawas state that if the HOA has neither approved nor disapproved in writing of an architectural submission within 30 days, approval is not required and the owner is free to commence the work as if all provisions of the submission process had been met.
Five months later, the owner submitted a second application. The application was sent certified/return receipt. The return receipt was signed, but not dated, by a management company owner/employee. The US Postal Service web site shows a delivery day and time—within business hours at a POBox. An email was sent to the owner confirming delivery by the management company principal a day or two later.
1. which delivery date is the legally effective one:
- USPS timestamp of delivery to HOA agent postal box
- signed but undated return receipt
- date of email sent by HOA agent?
The HOA failed to deliver to the owner either an approval or formal denial within a 30 day period as measured from USPS timestamp. A board meeting occurred on the 30th day from the date of the email during which the application was discussed with the owner present. During the meeting it was evidenced that:
- the architects denied the application (no grounds were given, only implied as aesthetic)
- the architectural committee chair indicated but did not explicate disapproval of the project
- another architectural committee member's objections were neither responded to nor taken up; this member stated that s/he was not included in any prior committee deliberations
- although subsequent owner/HOA conversation regarding project details has ensured, the HOA has not in writing, or explicityly, approved or
denied the second application, even within the "second" 30 day timeframe as measured by the date of email acknowledgement of the original submission.
2. given the HOA failure to respond in writing within either date timeframe, is defacto approval given to proceed despite architectural committee objections as either previously written on the first application or for any other reason?