Josh wrote:

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:57:16 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

DerbyDad03 wrote:

The question that still remains in my mind is: How did they get within
weeks of completion before this surfaced?



Lots of boards meet only once per year, with board members who have
second homes far away.
Or they ignored it until someone complained. ) The tough part is that
construction is basic in
HOA/condo documents, have to be enforced or risk losing the next time an
issue comes up.
I have sympathy for the owner's situation, but too many people use
unfortunate circumstances
to get around rules that really do protect communities.....the kid with
a handicap who got a two-
story playhouse, the woman with a husband in military who violated sign
regs, etc, etc.

There definitely has to be more to this story -- any CC&Rs that
specify that the HOA that has control over "architecture changes" has
some sort of approval process to go through with timelines specified.
In our association, we have 30 days to approve or deny a submitted
plan (there's a separate committee that reports to the board for
this), or it's automatically considered approved. I can't imagine
they would have considered this large of an application without
detailed plans/lot maps/etc. So, what happened?

1) The plans were approved (perhaps by default), and now the HOA
realizes it misapplied some of it's internal rules/guidelines. HOA at
fault.

2) The plans were denied and the homeowner proceeded anyway, or the
homeowner simply didn't bother to submit an application, either out of
ignorance (but you really really need to know what kinds of
restrictions you agreed to when you signed the title documents), or
malice (and I include "hoping to play the sympathy card" in that).

3) The plans changed (homeowner said "I'm going to rebuild the same
house" and then changed his mind) and weren't resubmitted. See #2

Look, I can see hoping an HOA will look the other way if I put up a
new outdoor light fixture, change the landscaping a bit, etc, but the
risk of having to undo is pretty small; I just can't imagine building
a whole house without making absolutely sure I was in compliance with
the rules of all legally interested parties (zoning, building codes,
insurance company, mortgage company, HOA, etc) and had written proof
of that.

I'm just risk averse like that, I guess.

The homeowner's attorney was interviewed on a local radio show. She
said they are getting close to a resolution with the HOA.

How it happened: after the plane crash, the homeowner was,
naturally, homeless. He found a place to stay, but has moved twice
since the crash. He was eager to rebuild on his lot, but he wanted
the design of the home revised so it wouldn't be exactly what the
previous home looked like prior to the plane crash. He also wanted
to get the house finished by the first anniversary of the crash, so
he was in a hurry. And that's when the trouble started.

The homeowner submitted his plans to the HOA. He didn't hear back
from them, so he and the builder thought it was okay to go ahead.
The problem was, the HOA was having a hard time getting in touch
with him. They had been sending him notices about his plans, but he
didn't receive them, probably due to his having moved.

The HOA finally caught up with him, which is when he first learned
of their concerns over his plans. They told him they wanted him to
return the LOT (my emphasis, since folks were arguing whether the
covenant applied to the house or the land) to its previous
condition. At which point he and his lawyer began meeting with the
HOA. And again, the lawyer says they're getting close to settling
this, so it sounds as though the HOA is trying to be reasonable
without creating any precedents it may have cause to regret in the
future.

By the way, the HOA had set up financial assistance accounts for the
plane crash victims, arranged for lodgings for the victims families
when they came for the funerals, and even arranged for translators
for one victim's relatives from a foreign country. So they're not
totally heartless.

HellT