Plug In Hybrid Cars?

First of all, I'm pretty sure that your documents do not actually prevent either (the cord out from the home or constructing an outlet as you describe).

So unless you documents specifically deny either, I would not jump to the conclusion that the board should automatically nix a request.

For one thing, the cord out to the street could still be done with a cord cover over the part of the cord that goes over the sidewalk.

And if the municipality will approve the outlet to be constructed, there should be no reason the association should object.

At least that's my knee-jerk reaction.

Yes, the ARC can "review" and in its "review" it can say that there is no policy or guideline preventing the installation -- review over.

The ARC could also review it and say that it looks awful and deny it (which they would do without hesitation. It would really be awful for someone that purchases such a car, or moves into the community already owning a car like this.

I am not sure how long the charging takes - I assume it is something that would be left overnight to charge.

It is not so much the sidewalk cover - it is having a cord run from the house, across the front lawn to the sidewalk that would look bad.

I actually did something similar. Verizon FIOS cut my comcast cable by accident durring a neighbor's installation. I was looking at being without cable (which means phone and Internet) for a week. I ended up stringing a cable above ground from the side of my house to the main junction box by the street - which would be quite similar to the setup we are talking about. It looked horrendous.

Abba,
Thought provoking post Abba.

Don't think I have an answer but just a few comments.
Having lived in Montgomery Village in a Townhouse I can readily see the problem, as it would be with all townhouses.

Some physical arrangements might blend in with a central charging station. May have to be located away from what you describe. I doubt the association would resist if there was a charging socket located near the curb if that property belonged to them. Of course a buried line would have to be installed and paid for by owner of unit. If all units have two spots a socket could be located between assigned spots. I am sure there must be some kind of lock that would secure the fixture. In our condo we do something like that and allow golf cart charging to be done by running a electrical cord from inside assigned storage area to golf cart.

I am like you, this is a problem waiting to get real very soon. I remember my Navy Days and they were always saying, "just hang in from a sky hook." No doubt there are some developments being built right now that have charging station intergrated into the design of the building plans. It is going to be a problem, that's for sure, but if you can get the job done, it will increase value of the property.

"Do you just forbid plug in cars?"

That is probably the worst thing a HOA could do. There is enough flak over the lack of vision some HOA's have due to Solar panel, and clotheslines reluctance.

Why not be a leader on environmental issues instead of being dragged into the next century by forcing legislation having to be adopted to address the realities of the world.

Prius owners since 2000, just waiting for plug-ins to become available.

Robert - thanks for the reply.

In our situation a central charging station would be tough. I am not sure how the allocation of the cost of that electricty would be handled. As well, the units are so spread out I am not sure how cars would access it.

I wonder if car manufacturers have planned for this issue? Maybe they will have some type of subsidised service that would help with wiring solutions? Sounds like a great business opportunity!

Well, first of all Abba, I think you are promoting a common misconception. It's not the HOA board's role to forbid or deny something that the CC&Rs don't address.

It's the membership's responsibility to conform the CC&Rs to their liking.

In other words, if the CC&Rs don't address the construction of these charging stations, a few forward-thinking residents could make the amendment and lobby and promote the changes throughout the neighborhood.

If the multiplicity required to amend is reached, the charging stations are in. If not, try again next year.

The board would have no choice but to "allow" them if the requisite number of assenting votes is met.

Robert, I wasn't trying to be hard on him. I was reacting to this statement of his: "Unfortunately, there are some HOA boards (certainly not all) that are unwilling to listen, unwilling to adapt, and unwilling to think."

I was pointing out that it isn't up to the boards to arbitrate things like this. It would seem to me that would be a membership-wide decision.

I think the statement gives the impression (falsely) that it's the boards that determine the rules, rather than their role actually being simply enforcing them. Granted, there are some areas where they get to use some broad discretion (such as clarifying ambiguous covenants and defining things like what exactly "commercial vehicle" means for that development).

But it's not the boards that create the covenants. So where one does not exist, like one for such things as charging stations for hybrid cars, it would, or rather should be the entire community that addresses it.

That's all I'm saying.

Yes, but that doesn't specifically DENY them, does it?

That's my point.

They can address ambiguity, but denying something specific that isn't addressed is not part of that.

For example, if your documents don't specifically say "Sheds are not allowed," and someone wants to erect a shed, that clause you mentioned can give the board the ability to control what an improvement like that might LOOK like, but not necessarily allow them to deny a shed altogether.

Here, here.

I'm not talking about the HOA being able to review and approve something.

But if there is NOTHING specific in the documents, they just can't make it up out of whole cloth and say, "This is now the way it's going to be."

Please don't misunderstand.

I did not say they cannot create RULES. But the RULES they make cannot conflict with the CC&Rs. So if the CC&R does not specifically deny something, neither can the rule.

For example, if the CC&Rs do not say sheds are not allowed, the ARC or board cannot arbitrarily deny a shed. They can create specifications for a shed, but they cannot make a RULE that says "No Sheds."

That's the point I'm trying to make.

If the documents do not restrict something, the rules cannot then create a restriction for that something.

So what I want to keep in line is that the board only has limited authority and they cannot make up rules that conflict with or are otherwise contrary to the CC&Rs.

They CAN use SOME discretion in SOME areas, but they cannot rewrite the CC&Rs.

I know of no HOA that gives the board carte blanch to do that.

A straw poll is nice, but still cannot take the place of a solid, specific CC&R amendment. Just saying.

I think you are misunderstanding me.

There are enough people out there now that are of the belief that HOA board members think they are rulers of little fiefdoms.

But we are not. We can only work within the parameters of the governing documents.

We can make rules IF our documents allow us to make rules.

But even those rules must align with the CC&Rs and other governing documents.

And if your documents don't specifically address something, you cannot make a rule about it.

If your documents don't allow for parking restrictions, you cannot make a rule that restricts parking.

If your documents don't disallow sheds, you cannot make a rule that bans sheds.

And I would argue that if your documents don't address the painting of sidewalks, then you can't make a rule preventing someone from doing so. Therefore, is someone were to actually paint a checkerboard on their sidewalk, we would have no say in whether they can or can't do that.

Others might not agree with me, and that's fine.

But this is the way I and other members of my board see it.

For example, our documents say that each homeowner must keep their lot maintained and free of weeds. It says nothing about how that is to happen.

Some homeowners want us to make some rules that specifically addresses how homeowners must mow their lawns in terms of where the grass can and can't be blown during lawn maintenance.

They want us to make a rule that prohibits grass clippings from being blown into the street.

We refuse to do that because our governing documents, while allowing us to make sure people mow their lawns, they do not give us leeway to dictate HOW that homeowner must do that.

If enough homeowners feel strongly enough about where grass clippings can and can't fall, then it is up to them to meet the requisite level of assenting votes to create an amendment that does that.

Until then the board has no business creating a "rule" dictating how a homeowner must mow his or her lawn.

After all, this is their association. It doesn't belong to the board. We have some degree of discretion, but we do not have complete and utter control of everything.

That's what I'm saying. It appears that we are arguing a similar position. We just have a subtle difference of opinion on the actual legitimate reach of the board.

Michele and Abba,

Your last Michele: After all, this is their association. It doesn't belong to the board. We have some degree of discretion, but we do not have complete and utter control of everything.
***********************************************
Maybe abba is suggesting that this "discretion" you speak of, as most covenants direct do actually give the Board Broad General powers to do as they wish if they can justify the act by consensus of the Board. Sure they have to answer to the owners, but they can commit the act and say they have the power to do this because of those discretionary powers.

Not saying that all Boards govern by the simple power of acting because they can, but some do, and will use this power to make up for lack of managerial skills or foresight, or because they have been caught doing something contrary to restrictions in the documents, be they rules or covenants. I would also note that this "discretionary power" has to be there because there could be times when the Board must act unilaterally, such a Emergency situations.

I cannot think of one.

All our rules clarify or expand on things that are already in our CC&Rs.

For example, we do not allow commercial vehicles to be parked on a lot. We have a rule that clarifies what constitutes a commercial vehicle.

We have a CC&R that requires the board to approve the appearance and placement of mailboxes. Our rule clarifies the appearance (with specifications) and placement of mailboxes.

We have a CC&R that requires approval of fencing, for materials and placement, and that also bans chain link fencing. Our rule provides clarification on materials and other specs like how far into the ground the posts must be, and that all fences must have a rear gate.

If our CC&Rs did not address any of the above, it would be a hard argument to me to say that we could create any of the rules that we have created regarding commercial vehicles, mailboxes, or fencing.

Boy... this thread has gotten long.. and I apologize, but it I am getting good info.

I am fairly new to HOA living, and very new to the board, but I have done tons of research on the way HOAs are run.

It was always my understanding that the rules that a board is allowed to create were specifically to address issues that were not covered in the covenants - as there is no way the covenants can cover everything especially the way technology changes.

Our covenants specifically say that the board has the power to create rules and regulations without consensus from all association members - amending the covenants do need consensus from all association members (as well as $$$ in legal fees).

During the election, in which I was fighting a very uphill battle to get elected, I argued that even though the board has the power to create rules and regs without member input they should want member input, and they should seek it out before creating these new rules (and I am talking impactful rule changes, not minor little rule changes). I was shouted down pretty badly with the argument that the association members voted the board in place and that gives the board members the authority to act as they feel fit on decisions impacting the community. To a point I agree with that - seeking all members opinions on contract bids, landscaping decisions etc. it is not feasible For rule changes though, I think members should have a large say before rules are created/changed.

I want to suggest to my board that we should add a couple of new membership meetings throughout the year (we only have one) where all the significant rule changes are collected and presented to the members in attendance to get feedback on before the board members vote on these changes. Unfortunately, I don't think my fellow board like this idea and being too radical can easily get me voted off the board, as the board has the power to do so with or without cause.

P.S. My board does a really good job and I don't want to sound like I am trashing them. I just have a very different opinion on allowing members to be more involved with the decisions for the community.

I suggest you thorough review your CCRs, paying careful attention to the article entitled "rules". Here's what my CCRs say: "By a majority vote of the board, the assn may, from time to time adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulatins to be known as the "Rules," with respect to all aspects of the assn's rights, activities and duties uner this declaration." I believe your CCRs will have comparable wording. I interpret that to mean the board adopted rules can only encompass what is addressed in the CCRs, contrary to your feeling that they can cover anything not addressed in the CCRs. Another important thing to keep in mind is that these rules cannot be inconsistent with (contrary to) the CCRs, articles or bylaws.


Our CCRs have the same wording. I don't see how that wording indicates that only rules encompassed by what is in the CCRs may be adopted. To me is says that the board can "adopt" new rules. At any rate, if something is already covered by the CCRs, why would it need to be created as a new rule?

As I said in my previous post - our CCRs do not address the painting of the sidewalk/walkway in front of my home. Are you saying that if I decide to paint my sidewalk black with purple polka-dots, that the board can not prevent me, and can not create a rule stating that sidewalks can not be painted? Is the only recourse for the board to go through the costly and time consuming process of amending the CCRs? That just does not make sense to me.


With regard to your position on the board: I'm not saying you're wrong about your feeling that the board can vote you off at their whim; however, most assn bylaws only allow the board to remove a director from his officer position. To remove a director from the board requires a vote of the membership. There are only 2 exceptions to this rule which are if the board member is a specified nr of months delinquent in payment of assessments or if a board member has so many unexcused absences from board meetings; but these are only valid exceptions if so spelled out in the bylaws.


I am 90% certain that not just a director, but a board member can be voted of without cause - I may be wrong though. I will double check.


Now, with regard to your original question about hybrid cars. I'm under the impression that some hybrids can be recharged through the gasoline engine so an electrical outlet may not be required. I would suggest to anyone driving a hybrid and looking for a home in an HOA, look for one that has a garage!!! There are some condo complexes that have garages and all single family home communities have garages. If it's an older single family home community there should be a carport at least.

You are thinking of the current day hybrids that have been around for 5 or so years. The batteries are charged by a generator run by the engine in gas supply mode. The newer designed cars, which are not yet common, are really electric cars with gas backup. They can run entirely on electricity without ever needing to be charged via the engine running on gas - the charge comes from the electrical grid - which is a huge savings environmentally and financialy.

I meant to say "officers" - thanks for the correction. Maybe you guys are right about my HOA's CCRs - I am sure if the board could have voted me off they would have the first meeting after I was elected.

Please start another thread - I am very interested in the topic.

Donna,

You make a very broad statement which really needs to be clarified. You said: "First of all, because of the power given to the Board by your documents, the Board can create rules not addressed in the CC&Rs." The CCRs most likely state the board may adopt rules which govern "use of the property", meaning they may make rules about conduct at the pool. Abba is of the opinion that the board can adopt any ole rule they wish. My opinion is that they are limited in the type of rules they can adopt and that they cannot create rules about something that is NOT addressed in the CCRs. By saying "rules which govern use of the property", conduct at the pool is, in effect, addressed in the CCRs.

I think most current Hybrids are charged through regenerative braking and don't need to be plugged in at all. But Abba is looking to the future when we will most likely have cars that are powered entirely by a battery that is charged through an external plug. The technology for such cars is actually available now, but manufacturers aren't jumping on it yet because of the infrastructure problems that Abba is addressing. On the other hand, nobody is investing in the infrastructure yet because there is no real demand for it (very few plug-in cars available).

There are groups that are working on these issues, and I predict that in a very few years we will start to see not only metered charging stations in public parking structures, but also changes in laws that will require cities (and HOAs) to allow the installation of charging stations in situations such as Abba describes where no garage or other private parking is available.

The benefit of the "new breed" Hybrid will be that it is the electrical grid that is charging your battery versus the gasoline in your tank doing the charging. While the electrical grid does contain some fossil fuel burning based electricity the vast majority comes from cleaner sources (nuclear for example).

And for the record I applaud you for trying to get your ducks in a row before they're needed.

Well, for the record, my wife drives a Toyota Camry Hybrid. We get about 45+ MPG with that. Me - I just ride my bike. I get about 20 miles/burrito.

Because we're your friends and we enjoy hearing it?

(PS: Dwight, I average around 45MPG myself! My husband loved the mileage so much, he "stole" my car from me ("purchased" it from me for his company) and I had to buy myself another one! DOH!)