Intrepreting Bylaw

Started by DeeS1 • 15 replies • 1346 views

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

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

DeeS1 (Michigan)
Posts: 223

Posted:

I'm having all sorts of technical difficulties today ... sorry if this is a duplicate post:

It is odd that George3d and I have different questions today referencing the same covenant. Our bylaws currently state:

Temporary Structures. No trailer, mobile home, motor home, van, tent, garage, or structure of a temporary character shall be used at any time as a temporary or permanent residence, nor shall any basement be used for such purposes; provided, however, that the foregoing restriction shall not apply to any activities by Developer or any builder, developer or real estate company during any sales and/or construction periods.

Does this give us valid grounds to deny a garage conversion by anyone other than the developer? Is there a significant difference in meaning for "permanent residence" and "living space" as it would relate to that subject.

If yes, would this also likely mean that HOs could not tecnically convert basements from "basement storage" to "living space" by finishing them. I'm thinking there must be some sort of difference because the basement does not require any exterior modifications (requiring approval of the HOA vs the garage coversion which requires the removal/replacement of the garage door with windows.

Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671

Posted:

Dee,

Doing anything within your basement walls is no ones business unless you convert it to a rental unit. That would not be allowed per covenants against single family unit and conducting a business. That would require a permit by your city to reconfigure it and it would need special access, fire walls and all kinds of code issues. So the answer is YES, you can convert your basement to living space as long as the H.O will be using it as part of the original dwelling. Gads, people put rec rooms in all of the time without going thru the approval process.

Garage modifications are totally different. That changes the covenanted purpose of the garage structure. would modify the exhisting physical parts of the structure and it's intended use. According to what you posted above, only the Developer, builder or real estate company may alter the structure during sales and or construction period.

DeeS1 (Michigan)
Posts: 223

Posted:

Thanks Donna. This all goes back to a question I posted long ago about requiring the former builder's model sale's office to be converted back to a garage - just a new angle. The HO is contending, among other things, that there is nothing in our rules that require him to convert the 3-rd portion back, only that he must have at least a 2-car garage.

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By DeeS1 on 11/09/2009 9:42 AM
Thanks Donna. This all goes back to a question I posted long ago about requiring the former builder's model sale's office to be converted back to a garage - just a new angle. The HO is contending, among other things, that there is nothing in our rules that require him to convert the 3-rd portion back, only that he must have at least a 2-car garage.

Well, that 2-car garage requirement is reason enough, since he does not currently have one.

But, from what you posted above, it also appears that he is now in violation of two of the covenants.

I'd move forward citing both.

DeeS1 (Michigan)
Posts: 223

Posted:

He's actaully converted the 2-car, but refuses to convert the 3-rd. Apparently, we are "to stay out of his business" now that he has 2.

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By DeeS1 on 11/09/2009 10:24 AM
He's actaully converted the 2-car, but refuses to convert the 3-rd. Apparently, we are "to stay out of his business" now that he has 2.

Please explain to me what a "3-rd" is.

DeeS1 (Michigan)
Posts: 223

Posted:

The 3rd bay of the 3-car garage. With this elevation, each car slot has it's own garage door. Sorry for the confusion.

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

So, you are saying that he has re-converted 2 of the 3 sections back to a garage, complete with both garage doors working?

But he has left the 3rd bay as a "room" - - - ??

To do WHAT in? Stand and look at the cars?!

I suppose it could be used as a mud room. . . but, why?

Anyway, the section you quoted about temporary or permanent living spaces should be sufficient.

DeeS1 (Michigan)
Posts: 223

Posted:

The two garage doors are operational, but the inside does not appear to have been changed back to a garage-like structure (not our concern as long as the outside looks like a garage). The builder had a wall between this area and the 3rd car part. I believe it is intended to be used as a home office or play area for their kids.

HB (Oregon)
Posts: 143

Posted:

I would have to agree with the homeowner. He has complied by converting it back to a 2 car garage as required in your documents. I do not believe he must convert the 3rd bay.

BrianB (California)
Posts: 2,820

Posted:

Boy, i would argue this very differently. shows how background and interpretation collide.

Temporary Structures. No trailer, mobile home, motor home, van, tent, garage, or structure of a temporary character shall be used at any time as a temporary or permanent residence, nor shall any basement be used for such purposes; provided, however, that the foregoing restriction shall not apply to any activities by Developer or any builder, developer or real estate company during any sales and/or construction periods.

First, I would hesitate to ever call an attached garage a "temporary structure". If my attached garage is temporary, then my entire house is too, since they were built the same way, using the same standards, and even share support walls, beams, headers, etc.. I would have a hard time calling a frame/block separate garage on a pad or foundation temporary either. A pole frame with some tarps called temporary, i could agree, but not a standard frame garage on a foundation.

Second, I would argue that converting a part of my attached garage would be okay, as i am not making it a residence, just making it PART OF my residence. it doesn't have it's own address, mail delivery, etc. THat's a stronger arguement for an attached garage than a separate one, i grant you. But still, is there a standard definition of "residence"? Does it require bathrooms, water, heat? a mailing address, tax base?

Isn't it funny that with all the words in the English language to pick and choose from, the original authors couldn't have simply chosen words like these: Under no circumstances shall a garage be used for anything other than a garage: to park cars, store boxes, and/or as a work area filled with power or hand tools. Don't convert them into living space.

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Dee,

I agree with HB and also think the BOD should just let this guy alone! From the outside it appears that he has a 2-car garage, why should the board care how it looks on the inside or what it's being used for.

Frankly, I think the "temporary structures" covenant you posted should be amended to delete "garage". IMO, the intent of such a provision is to prevent people from living in a tent,mobile home, motor home, etc. This often happens while the home is being built and if it's allowed to happen the home may take years and years to be built, or it may never be built. I remember as a kid driving through an area where a family moved into the basement of their unfinished home. I don't think the home was EVER built.

DeeS1 (Michigan)
Posts: 223

Posted:

In my opinion, the BOD could care less about what the inside of the garage looks like. The issue is with the lack of garage doors on all of the garages ... although nicely done, it still looks like a converted garage. It's clearly a former garage and doesn't match the architecture of any of the other homes on the street.

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Dee,

Most of the homes in my community have 3-car garages with one 2-car garage door and 1 1-car garage door. The builder offered an option for a den in place of the 3d garage. The only difference is that those homes have a 2-car garage door and a window on the 3d bay. If the BOD is going to be persistent perhaps they should require that he put a window in the 3d bay to make it look more like a room.

If the h/o put garage doors on 2 bays, I can't imagine why it doesn't look like any of the other homes in the community.

DeeS1 (Michigan)
Posts: 223

Posted:

I'm sure a legal consolation is forthcoming anyway, but my read on the clause is basically not to define what a temporary structure is, but to say what can be lived in within the community. IMHO, it looks like it is trying to say that people shouldn't be using their garage, van, tent, etc to live in and grants special privileges to the developer only for the purpose of sales?

"Temporary Structures. No trailer, mobile home, motor home, van, tent, garage, or structure of a temporary character shall be used at any time as a temporary or permanent residence, nor shall any basement be used for such purposes; provided, however, that the foregoing restriction shall not apply to any activities by Developer or any builder, developer or real estate company during any sales and/or construction periods."

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Dee,

Agreed, but I don't know why he included garage and basement. Those are areas attached to the house and it's no one's business if they are used as living areas. That's why I really think that provision was intended to apply to when the home is under construction, although that is not spelled out.

🎯 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