resubmission of architectural requests

Started by JoeR1 • 30 replies • 2405 views

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

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

JoeR1 (Colorado)
Posts: 8

Posted:

I searched the data base and found nothing relevant so here is my
question...
I'm trying to learn if other architectural committees have a process by which homeowners who submit incomplete requests are given the opportunity to correct them instead of having to wait an entire month to re-submit. In our system the Architectural Committee recommends approval or disapproval and forwards each request to the board for their decision. When we find the request has errors or omissions the course of action has been a recommendation to the board to deny the request based on our findings. When the board meets the following week and IF they do in fact deny the request the homeowner must now resubmit a corrected architectural request for the following month. Most architectural committee members feel this is sometimes a serious burden placed on the homeowner which could be cleared up by contacting the homeowner with our concerns. We are not sure if
the mechanism for contacting these homeowners should be a formal one through the management company or just how to go about this. I should
ad our architectural meetings are conducted via email which would allow everyone to review any corrections OR resubmissions without a
formal meeting right up until the boards monthly meeting.
I would appriciate any comments you may have.
Thanks

DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671

Posted:

Joe, Welcome!
Our ARB or ARC as some call it met on the 1st Thursday of each month. Any request that needed to be corrected or amended would have to wait until the next meeting in a month UNLESS there were contractors or permits or time restraints being held up until final approval. The ARB then had the authority to call a special meeting, which they did often. It never turned out to be a problem .

JoeR1 (Colorado)
Posts: 8

Posted:

Hello Donna and thank you for your reply.
My intent is to try and make the process more efficient and user
friendly at the same time. No homeowner should be required to resubmit their request and thereby be delayed for an entire month
because of errors and/or omissions in their request. As in individual its hard for me to imagine if my request were denied/delayed for up to 7 weeks when all someone had to do was ask me for clarification. Personally, as a committee member I have no problem paying a visit to a neighbor to give a helping hand. Maybe I'm just to nice a guy...
regards
Joe

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Joe,

Do your CCRs state the BOD must make the approvals. Some CCRs give that authority to the Architectural Committee. But, even so, if more info is required, instead of requesting the submission be denyed why not just ask the h/o for the additional info. Just send the complete submissions to the board for their approval. Any contact with the h/o should be by letter (always leave a paper trail!). If the h/o meets with the Architectural Committee, they may verbally request additional info, but that request should be followed up with a written request.

DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671

Posted:

Joe,

A couple of things come into play when approving or denying any application. The scale of the item in question comes into play such as a landscape problem. For instance, an issue with plant selection that can be changed on the spot should be able to change on the spot. A blueprint that needs a change? That cannot be allowed on the spot. So it is basically the seriousness of the change that affects the approval or denial.

Absolutely you do not want to play hardball with an applicant. After all, they might be your neighbor but you MUST!!! follow your ARC guidelines. You should not be a committee of one and others are affected in your decisions as well. Be fair and somewhat flexable but follow your documents as well.

RogerB (Colorado)
Posts: 5,067

Posted:

Joe, when I receive an obvious incomplete request I phone or email the owner, discuss it and ask for another request form to be completed and submitted. And if it is something which can be added by the ACC prior to approving (on the "subject to the following" line on the form) it is added at that location on the request form prior to approval.

JoeR1 (Colorado)
Posts: 8

Posted:

Hi Mary,
Yes they do, our committee only advises the BOD.
Some progress:
Enough committee members are interested enough to ask for a
"normal" meeting so we can kick this issue around. Hope springs
eternal. I'm very curious how the property management people
feel about this. To my knowledge no one has asked for their
input but I'm sure they will have something to say. I agree with
your "paper trail" comment for some situations while others
are so simple it would be a waste of time and paper. Most of
our requests deal with rather simple issues.
regards
Joe

JoeR1 (Colorado)
Posts: 8

Posted:

Donna,
Yes, ALL things are what I like to refer to as "situational dependant". I must tell you that if our guidelines were followed
to the letter there would be an awful lot of FOR SALE signs
doting the landscape. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that that
sentiment would apply to MOST HOA developments that have 10 pages of how to live your life with much of it being ridiculous unenforcable nonsense. Thankfully, "most" of the people I have worked with over the last 5 years aren't the type to drop a dime on their neighbor for putting their trash out 15 minutes early.
regards
Joe

JoeR1 (Colorado)
Posts: 8

Posted:

Hi Rodger,
You sound like my kinda guy. Yes, we also do "subject to the following" but as you know it doesn't work all the time. Do you
or anyone you work with see any obvious risks in dealing with homeowners on a personal level? I know some here are worried about a problem developing. You know, like, "no good deed goes unpunished". My guess is the committee will end up communicating to the management company whatever problems there are with the
request and the management company will forward that to the homeowner asking for a clarification or perhaps a new request all together. Thats fine as long as it is done in a timely manner.
Personally I see no reason to involve the management company unless no one on the committee wants the job.
regards
Joe

GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491

Posted:

"Hi, Mr.X. The ACC committee received your proposal and we need clarification on a few things. Do you have time to come down and talk to us at our Tuesday meeting and clear it up so you don't have to wait an extra month while we mail things back and forth? You do, great we meet at 7:30 see you then."

Although we tend to make matters more complicated than they need to be, simple is usually the easiest way and would leave the H/O feeling like he wasn't dealing with a bunch of unfeeling bureaucrats. For a great idea IMHO on something else that can help the ACC with projects, see: http://www.gazette.com/news/hoa-61463-maybe-calls.html

Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions

DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671

Posted:

Joe,

Perhaps your guidelines need some updating or modifications. Those can be done easily as they are not USUALLY documents that go to the membership for approval but written by a committee or Board. AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT CHANGE ITEMS TO GO AGAINST THE PROTECTIVE COVENANTS which I am sure you are aware of.

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JoeR1 on 09/14/2009 11:16 PM
Donna,
Yes, ALL things are what I like to refer to as "situational dependant". I must tell you that if our guidelines were followed
to the letter there would be an awful lot of FOR SALE signs
doting the landscape. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that that
sentiment would apply to MOST HOA developments that have 10 pages of how to live your life with much of it being ridiculous unenforcable nonsense. Thankfully, "most" of the people I have worked with over the last 5 years aren't the type to drop a dime on their neighbor for putting their trash out 15 minutes early.
regards
Joe

That's too bad. If the majority of people have issues with some of the covenants, then why aren't they amending them instead of ignoring them?

It's the failure to enforce that gets many HOAs into problems when a particularly heinous infraction occurs and the homeowner digs in.

Neither you nor your "turn a blind eye" neighbors are doing your development, or all of your neighbors and the community's home values, any favors with that sort of behavior and attitude.

You'd be surprised how many covenants you perceive as "unenforceable" actually are enforceable, and should be, too.

Chances are that people don't get into trouble with 15-minute-early trash can placement.

That's a little melodramatic, don't you think?

The real problem is when people habitually put out trash days and days ahead of time, or pretty much store their trash containers at the curb, often over-flowing.

How do you plan to enforce against them if you consider a covenant on trashcan placement timing petty?

Answer: you will have problems doing so, and could risk valid enforcement of other covenants as well.

Then when the community continues in decline, and property values fall, I guess all those neighbors who ignored the covenants they felt were petty won't have a problem with how problematic it will be to get the sale price for their home they feel they are due.

The truism I've run into more times than not is that the majority of people living in deed restricted communities are there because of the very deed restrictions that exist. They also have a reasonable and legitimate expectation that all of the covenants will be enforced fairly and consistently.

If there are any covenants that the majority feel don't belong, then there are prescribed remedies for that.

Follow those remedies and don't ignore enforcement.

JoeR1 (Colorado)
Posts: 8

Posted:

I'm sorry I don't really have the time to explain in detail where you
seem to be putting words in my mouth. I expect you are a 100% supporter of the HOA style of living where I and many other reasonable people have some problems in that regard. That being said I invite you or anyone else to review the following and tell me if it conforms to the mandates found in OTARD, "Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule". I know where the flaws are, do you?

In fact there are several items I would like to run by the good people here for your thoughts on their enforceability and wisdom.
Is that acceptable here?

Exterior Antennas, Cable Wiring and Satellite Dishes -Reqnest required
1.
No exterior antennas will be installed which are visible from the street.
2.
No cable wiring will be installed which is visible from the street.
3 Satellite Dishes:
a.
of eighteen (18) inches or less in diameter are preferred
b.
placement in the least obtrusive location possible is preferred. The following locations should be explored in the order listed {on the rear roof below the roof peak, on the rear deck SUJface, on the inside of the rear deck railing below the rail line, within landscaped beds to the rear of the unit, within landscaped beds on the side of the unit, within landscaped beds in the front ofthe unit
c.
be located a recommended distance of two (2) feet from any adjoining property
d.
must match the color of the home structure ("Westover Sandtone" if placed on the stucco or black or grey if placed on or near the ground, on the deck or on the mof) so long as painting the device will not void the manufacturers warrantee
e.
must be for the personal use of the resident(s) of the unit only and limited to one (1) per unit
f.
are subject to the review ofthe Architectural Review Committee and Board review in all aspects
Should Federal Regulations change, Westover Crossing Homeowners Association has the right to modify the above guidelines regarding satellite dish installation.

TracieS (Colorado)
Posts: 460

Posted:

Joe,

Did you seriously post a QUIZ for Michele????

While I may not always agree with Michele, and she would probably say the same thing about me, I would almost ALWAYS take her word on issues of compliance and document integrity.

I can't say I disagree with her in this instance.

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

I fail to discern your point?

I agree that there are plenty of people who are not comfortable with living in a deed restricted community.

I don't see anywhere that I implied otherwise. I would strongly recommend that people with that mindset not move into one. Or move into one that has restrictions of the sort they feel they can live within. My own dad hates HOAs. When he wanted to move back from Colorado, we purchased a home for him that was not in a deed restricted community. He would not have moved back otherwise and it really was time for Jeremiah Johnson to come down off the mountain! (The closest hospital to him was a 45-minute EMS ride away! And he is in his 70s!)

I also never said that there aren't unenforceable covenants; simply made the observation that many covenants that people feel are unenforceable actually are.

Where are we talking about satellite dishes or antennas all of a sudden?

I was directly addressing your melodramatic comment that people get nailed for a 15-minute timeframe violation of some kind for garbage can placement.

You may not like that I support covenant communities, but what was the point of changing the discussion mid-stream? Just to argue with me of something as subjective as whether one likes or doesn't like HOA living?!

Even so, were in anything I stated above was I wrong?

If the majority (the requisite majority prescribed by your documents) do not like certain amendments, they should change (amend) them.

Ignoring them or not "dropping a dime" benefits no one and can erode the board's ability to enforce against violations.

TracieS (Colorado)
Posts: 460

Posted:

Oh, Joe, I meant to answer that we here LOVE to hear questions about other issues!

Sometimes, we lose sight of the forest for the trees, but isn't that kind of nice?

We/I might get a bit "snappish" sometimes, but isn't that one of the great things about this country? You get your opinion, someone else gets their opinion...

Hey, let's all sing Kumbayyah...

EllenS1 (Florida)
Posts: 1,148

Posted:

Joe,

Are you the poster George who hates hoas and has been reported to HOATALK and been taken off the board?

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Ellen,

I feel very certain Joe is not George S. from AZ! I know George, and Joe's postings are not his style at all.

JoeR1 (Colorado)
Posts: 8

Posted:

No ladies, I am not George.
I have been serving on our architectural committee for FIVE
years. Looks like lady M inst going to answer me:o)
Not surprised...

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Joe,

So people who have no problems with HOAs are "unreasonable" people? And, people who live in HOAs and hate them are "reasonable"? That's a rather warped mindset if you ask me!! I just love it when people like you like to denegrade HOA members, when in fact you're one too. If you hate HOA living so much why did you even buy a home in an HOA? More importantly, why do you stay?

Now if your goal is to run down HOAs, Joe (or is it Rich?), you're on the wrong messageboard. I don't know of any in PA you could join but there is one in particular based in AZ that you would feel right at home in. Just Google "Hoanet" and go to the link. Bye, bye.

EllenS1 (Florida)
Posts: 1,148

Posted:

Michele,

You go girl!

SusanS5 (Florida)
Posts: 16

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JoeR1 on 09/14/2009 7:21 AM
I searched the data base and found nothing relevant so here is my
question...
I'm trying to learn if other architectural committees have a process by which homeowners who submit incomplete requests are given the opportunity to correct them instead of having to wait an entire month to re-submit. In our system the Architectural Committee recommends approval or disapproval and forwards each request to the board for their decision. When we find the request has errors or omissions the course of action has been a recommendation to the board to deny the request based on our findings. When the board meets the following week and IF they do in fact deny the request the homeowner must now resubmit a corrected architectural request for the following month. Most architectural committee members feel this is sometimes a serious burden placed on the homeowner which could be cleared up by contacting the homeowner with our concerns. We are not sure if
the mechanism for contacting these homeowners should be a formal one through the management company or just how to go about this. I should
ad our architectural meetings are conducted via email which would allow everyone to review any corrections OR resubmissions without a
formal meeting right up until the boards monthly meeting.
I would appriciate any comments you may have.
Thanks

If you have a PM, there shouldn't be any errors or omissions when it is given to the ARC for the routine requests. The PM should review requests when received to ensure that it is complete. If not, a phone call or e-mail should be sent to the member at the time the request is received, outlining what is missing.

Routine requests- roof replacement, door colors, etc., should be a formality to approve, IMO. If the ARC meeting is via e-mail, I don't know why there would be any wait to just approve this. I think I would look to change your docs to allow routine requests to be approved by the ARC, making them provisional on obtaining all required permits (in the case of a roof.)

Deck additions, dish TV locations, etc. might require additional information once the ARC has seen the request. Again, I think the PM should review the request, obtain as much info as possible, include his/her comments (ie- do the staff work!) and then present the request to the ARC. The ARC members can then check out the property (or not), review the request and, if necessary, request that additonal info be provided. A good PM should be able to keep the process on track.

GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491

Posted:

Joe not to nit pick but there is a vast difference between not enforcing the Covenants which is what Michele was talking about and having an unenforceable Covenant which is what you cited. Most if not all of the language in the antenna - satellite Covenant you posted has been invalidated by Federal Guidelines which supersede it so it is not a matter of like-minded people choosing to ignore it which you posted but is unenforceable. I'll also wager that someplace in your CC&R's possibly in both the Covenants, By-Laws and AOI is a Severability Clause which states something to the effect of:

The invalidity of any covenant, restriction, condition, limitation or any other provision of this Declaration or of any part of the same, shall not impair or affect in any manner the validity, enforceability or effect of the rest of this Declaration.

Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions

SusanS5 (Florida)
Posts: 16

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JoeR1 on 09/17/2009 2:54 PM
I'm sorry I don't really have the time to explain in detail where you
seem to be putting words in my mouth. I expect you are a 100% supporter of the HOA style of living where I and many other reasonable people have some problems in that regard. That being said I invite you or anyone else to review the following and tell me if it conforms to the mandates found in OTARD, "Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule". I know where the flaws are, do you?

In fact there are several items I would like to run by the good people here for your thoughts on their enforceability and wisdom.
Is that acceptable here?

Exterior Antennas, Cable Wiring and Satellite Dishes -Reqnest required
1.
No exterior antennas will be installed which are visible from the street.
2.
No cable wiring will be installed which is visible from the street.
3 Satellite Dishes:
a.
of eighteen (18) inches or less in diameter are preferred
b.
placement in the least obtrusive location possible is preferred. The following locations should be explored in the order listed {on the rear roof below the roof peak, on the rear deck SUJface, on the inside of the rear deck railing below the rail line, within landscaped beds to the rear of the unit, within landscaped beds on the side of the unit, within landscaped beds in the front ofthe unit
c.
be located a recommended distance of two (2) feet from any adjoining property
d.
must match the color of the home structure ("Westover Sandtone" if placed on the stucco or black or grey if placed on or near the ground, on the deck or on the mof) so long as painting the device will not void the manufacturers warrantee
e.
must be for the personal use of the resident(s) of the unit only and limited to one (1) per unit
f.
are subject to the review ofthe Architectural Review Committee and Board review in all aspects
Should Federal Regulations change, Westover Crossing Homeowners Association has the right to modify the above guidelines regarding satellite dish installation.

Joe-

Just read your next post (above). I don't think anyone on here will venture to say whether or not your HOA's guidleines are in compliance with OTARD. I see some areas that I would cite if I wanted to fight a declination from the ARC, but I also see areas that I would use to bolster an ARC's authority to regulate dish placement.

If the ARC turned down a request for a dish, I would hope that they gave one or two alternative locations where the dish would be acceptable. I don't think they can flat out say no to all dishes (operative word being "think"!), but they can mandate where it must be placed.

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JoeR1 on 09/17/2009 2:54 PM

f. are subject to the review ofthe Architectural Review Committee and Board review in all aspects Should Federal Regulations change, Westover Crossing Homeowners Association has the right to modify the above guidelines regarding satellite dish installation.

I already answered you by asking you what your point is? But to expand that reply: In what place have I ever represented myself as an OTARD expert?

As it turns out, however, it doesn't matter which parts of your covenants covering satellites or antennas and such are flawed or not because the above is a "get out of jail" free passage that allows the board to not enforce whatever portions of the initial restriction run afoul of any federal regulations.

So again, what is your point? And please, tell me, do you honestly think you have intimidated or z-snapped me in some way?! And why would you?!

I was answering your posts regarding specific statements you made about enforcement of the deed covenants to which all members of your community agreed upon purchase of their homes, and to which you, theoretically, accepted to enforce as part of your fiduciary duty as a board member.

You certainly have a right to make amendments and changes to those documents in your capacity as both, a member of the organization and a board member of the HOA, as long as you follow the requisite process in those documents for doing so.

But you don't have the right to arbitrarily determine which you will and won't enforce and which you deem petty or whatever.

If there are some that are truly "unenforceable," then those should be addressed and either changed or deleted, by the method prescribed within those documents.

But isn't that a different thread topic altogether?

Exactly where does my reply somehow result in a chest-thumping challenge?

JoeR1 (Colorado)
Posts: 8

Posted:

Looks like a few of you have a real problem with anyone who
disagrees with just about any aspect of HOAs. There are many
problems with them but also many pluses. I chose to work on the inside, maybe help my neighbors in some way, change a few things that were obviously wrong headed. (like disregarding OTARD)Wonder
how many of you know that even TV antennas can't be totaly controlled. Unfortunately 95% of this community is apathetic or just bitch when they are directly affected. Approx 800 people live here and its all we can do to get 5 board members and finally 7 arch. committee members. Despite that, as far as the quality of life is concerned this HOA community is probably one of the better ones. I certainly agree with most of our architectual standards and enforcing those areas which have a direct effect on appearance and
property values. Now obviously some of you have no problem with
HOAs having dictatorial powers over some aspects of your life
which have little or nothing to do with resale value. I know, yes
"I KNOW" that some of you born again defenders of the status quo just love the power you have to screw with other people over what amounts to nothing but petty bullshit. Put your guidelines on the table for an up or down vote by the community and see how many BS clauses get the circular file. I kinda feel sorry for the people whos lives SOME of you narrow minded idiots directly affect.
I bet you nasty bitches voted for McCain!
PLEASE
no reply is necessary OR wanted, i have a life and certainly need no more of this garbage................

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

My! The trolls just come out in force some nights, don't they!

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

Oh, by the way, my development has amended our deed covenants probably 10 or 12 times.

Some portions that various residents wanted to change for one reason or another failed. That's happened I think 3 times.

One that was brought forward twice was an amendment to allow above-ground pools.

Nope. Thumbs down by the community both times. Out of 300 votes, the above-ground pools only received 9.

When we first moved in, sheds of any kind were not allowed. My husband led a committee to amend that portion of the covenants. Passed with flying colors, though there were still a good chunk of people who voted it down, they were outvoted almost 2 to 1. Heck we even had 3 of our 5 board members at the time vote AGAINST allowing sheds! Those dastardly dictators! They lost anyway! See their votes on the amendments count the same as every other members! DOH!

Over the course of the years the community amended portions related to signage, garbage cans, off-street parking (this one was actually made even stronger than the original covenant was), fencing, gardens, a whole slew of different things.

Great dictatorship we have here, huh?

And we've also had residents get on the board to try what you're doing, to unravel it from the inside.

They usually don't last long when they find out the rules really do apply to us, too, and that the majority of the people in the community actually moved here because of the covenants.

Another DOH! moment.

But I still propose to you the same thing you hurled at us: if your residents feel strongly enough about changing certain covenants, or all of them for that matter, then more power to them. Let them put their feet and sweat where their mouths are, garner the support for the amendment or the vote, call the meeting and just do it!

We've done it -- at least 10 or 12 times!

DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671

Posted:

Joe,

Just my take on your questions:

#1 Not enforcable per FCC guidelines Best location for maximum reception is the law
#2 enforcable Reasonable per documents requirements
#3 a. enforcable (notice the word "preferred?")
#3 b. enforcable ("preferred "again)
#3 c. enforcable (notice "located words a reccomended")
#3 d. enforcable "Match home color"
#3 e. enforcable" Personal use only"
# f. No problem with this. It covers the ARC ability to change to be in compliance with FCC.

This is so simply written and it amazes me that there are questions about it.

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Good riddance to bad rubbish!

EllenS1 (Florida)
Posts: 1,148

Posted:

Joe will probably not read this but if he does I have no wish to be dictatorial but wish more homeowners expressed their opinions. It is a bit like pushing a horse with a rope..most just don't care until it hits them in the pocketbook so it leaves a few of us to do what we think is best for our association and, yes, our property values. I purchased here believing because I lived in an hoa things would be kept up to snuff but to do so requires we live by our covenants. I could care less about infringing on others rights, don't consider myself wanting dictatorial powers. etc. but we have recently had some move in who seem to want this place to look like a dump so, yes, I will fight to see they comply. And by the way I voted for Obama and in fact cried when he was elected. Joe needs to get rid of some of the bile he has within him.

🎯 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