CCR's Interpretations

Our BOD is constantly discussing an Article in our CCR's and debating the definition. I thought I would throw it out here to get some opinions.

Our CCR's state that "Any Owner may delgate, in accordance with the By-Laws of the Association, his right of enjoyment to the Common Areas and facilities to the members of his family, his tenants or contract purchasers who reside on a Lot."

Our By-Laws don't cover parking at all except that the BOD can create guidelines. Our guidelines allow 2 parking permits per Unit.

One board member is currently arguing that due to the above statement in our CCR's, owners with only 1 vehicle should have 1 parking permit revoked because the person using the 2nd permit does not reside on the lot.

Now our parking lots are considered Common Area and our CCR's also state that "Every Owner shall have a right and nonexclusive easement of enjoyment in and to the Common Areas."

This would also apply to our picnic areas, or even any common area where neighborhood children play. So my child's friend would not be able to come over and play outside in the Common Areas according to this Board Member.

Does anyone have an opinion on this? I think this board is trying to read the CCR's the way they want them interpreted.

Christina, while by strict definition this may be correct it is not reasonable. Obviously your CC&Rs and By-laws are old or not well written. For example what if the owner is a woman? Were the terms guests and invitees intentionally left out so those persons could not use a swimming pool? Or did the drafter simply fail to include those persons? Personally I would allow guests and invitees so the childrens can have their friends over to play. I would allocate all units an equal number of parking spaces unless there is a very good reason to discriminate.

Christina,

You posting reminded me of a story about my wife's grandmother, Rose. Her complex assigned one covered spot to each lot. Rose did not own a car. Therefore, she leased the space to another member who had two cars. Just a short little story to demonstrate how people may delegate their privileges to others.

The Board must look at the parking spaces as being assigned to the lot/member vs. being assigned to an individual. If you designate parking by permits (we use assigned parking spaces) then you must equal the same number of permits to each member/lot. Failure to treat each member/lot fairly and equally can result in legal action being taken against the Association.

Since your CC&Rs allow it, If the member wants a guest, relative or anyone else use his permit the Association should have zero issues about it providing that the user of the permit follows the rules and regulations associated with the permit. If the Director who is complaining wants to revoke this delegating authority, they should take steps to amend the CC&R's. However, that still won't get him an extra parking space.

Tim

BTW, where do the tenants park? They are not owners.

When I lived in the condo (26 units/50 spaces), we had one assigned space for each unit - didn't matter if they owned a car. Every effort was made to first assign the upper floor units close to the nearest stairs and then the ground floor as close to their unit as possible. It was a fair and no one had a legitimate complaint. It was their exclusive use; if the friend wantrf to park there while visiting, no problem. All other spaces were marked as visitor and anyone with a second car or visiting could part in the yellow marked visitor spaces. Visitor spaces were spaced out among the assigned spaces, where possible, so a second car could possibly get close to their unit.

The only problem we had was that sometimes two units would switch spaces. It wasn't the switching that bothered us if it kept them happy. We just told both - in writing - okay, but that when one moved out, the other reverted back to their assigned space. It worked and we had peace. Keep a detailed map of the parking lot for future boards. And keep the copy of notes about switching spaces with your map. It comes in handy every few years when everyone has shuffled their spaces and others are complaining. We didn't have assigned handicapped spaces, but did shuffle a couple of spaces to accommodate - no one complained.

If your CCRs give the board the authority to make the guidelines, then your board should change them.

If you want to liven things up in our Association, mention parking (or removing trees... or the pool...).

When our complex was built, there were half as many parking spaces built as there are units. Each unit has a two-car garage, and our CC&Rs state that each unit should maintain space to park at least one car in the garage. Even in an optimum situation, if all residents just used their garage to park, there would still only be 1/2 a common area parking space available for every unit -- not everyone could provide a parking space for a guest at the same time even in the best of circumstances (and yes, I know, chances are that wouldn't happen in real life, but it shows the picture).

Currently, we have no parking permit scheme in place.

The problem -- as many of you can see and may well have -- people tend to fill up their garage with stuff and some don't have enough space to park even one car in the garage. One of my neighbours has a packed garage and parks FOUR vehicles in guest spots all the time. Another neighbour has two available spaces in the garage and never parks anywhere else.

Some units park 2 cars in their garage, some one, some none.

Right now, the parking spaces (originally intended mainly for guests) are almost always used by residents and the overflow is the adjacent street. If one doesn't mind parking along the street there's always plenty of room, though perhaps a little less convenient (and riskier for break-ins and vandalism).

Right now our BoD is considering a way to be more fair about the parking situation as well as provide an incentive to comply with the CC&R provision to be able to park at least one car in the garage.

We're considering going to a parking permit situation, in which one permit (to a maximum of two) would be issued to each homeowner for each space available to park in the garage. If a homeowner had two spaces available in the garage -- two permits issued. Once space in the garage, one permit. No spaces -- no permit.

This still, of course, means the potential for more permits than spaces, but those spaces would be "as available" to anyone who has a permit. The homeowner could issue a permit to a guest if desired, or not.

It's not a perfect solution, but perhaps a little more equitable than the free-for-all we currently have.

As to how your BoD is interpreting things -- yes, sometimes motivation drives an interpretation. But in working out such problems, I always try to ask "What was the original intent of the rule?" That can help with perspective.

But I wouldn't bet on it with certainty. (: