|
|
 |
Bingo Night
Bingo Night
Bingo Night
Bingo Night
Bingo Night
Bingo Night
Bingo Night
Bingo Night
Bingo Night
Bingo Night
Bingo Night
Bingo Night
Bingo Night
Bingo Night
Bingo Night
Bingo Night
Bingo Night
Bingo Night
Bingo Night
Bingo Night
Bingo Night
Bingo Night
Bingo Night
|
|
|
Resource Center
Frequently Asked Questions
Answered by Matt D. Ober, Esq., Richardson & Harman, LLP
First of all, it is important to understand that the responsibility over the operation and maintenance of the Association, including its common area, lies with the Board of Directors. Implicit in this responsibility is the authority to make decisions about the maintenance and repair of the project that preserve the value of the asset—the condominium property. The project exterior is common area and maintaining the integrity and uniformity of the property exterior is one such way to preserve the value of the asset.
Associations typically regulate everything from wall color to window coverings all in an effort to preserve the aesthetic quality of a community and maintain a uniform attractive appearance. Thus, the fact that there may not be an explicit CC&Rs provision requiring the Association to maintain “the exterior integrity and look of the building” does not relieve the Board of its obligation to maintain, repair and preserve the common areas. Also, even if there is no specific CC&Rs directive to maintain uniformity, the CC&RS typically contain architectural approval provisions that require the Board or Architectural Committee to consider the nature, kind, shape, color, size, material and location of modifications, and to review and approve proposed modifications as to harmony of external design with existing structures.
To the extent the Board permitted three units to install doors and windows with very different designs than the remaining units, it has diminished the exterior integrity of the common area. While the new doors and windows may be more attractive or of better quality, eliminating the project’s uniformity will likely negatively impact the aesthetic quality of the community.
The real issue presented here is how the Association regains the exterior uniformity of the property. If the current Board is not inclined to maintain the uniform nature of the Project, despite objections by the homeowners, then eventually, a new Board will be put in place (either through annual election or recall) that will carry out the purpose and intent of the CC&Rs and the desires of the community. If the current Board recognizes the error of its ways, making the three owners remove their new doors and windows may not be practical or economical, particularly since the installation was based upon explicit Board approval. Unless the Association were willing to reimburse these owners for the costs involved, requiring the three owners to remove the new doors and windows at their own expense, would not be fair, just or equitable. (Of course, I am assuming that there was no bias or favoritism in the decision made by the Board in favor of the two Board members. It isn’t noted in the question.)
Even if the Board did reverse its decision and required the three owners to remove the new doors and windows, reinstalling the old matching doors and windows may not be an option, particularly if the old windows and doors are outdated and no longer available on the market. But the Board can adopt a policy that in the future any new windows and doors installed in the other units must be of the same (or similar) design as the doors and windows installed recently by the three other units.
The Board should also consider having their CC&Rs reviewed by legal counsel to determine the existence of any standards by which architectural decisions are to be made. A clear and concise opinion letter on the Association’s architectural review standards would assist the Board in maintaining aesthetic uniformity in the future.
Finally, any other non-conforming exterior modifications should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. If an owner made the exterior modification without authorization or approval, the owner should be advised to remove the nonconforming modification and restore the property to its original condition. If an unauthorized modification has existed for a while, the Board should allow the owner a reasonable period of time to restore the property before taking additional enforcement action
Once a pattern of clear and consistent enforcement of uniform architectural standards is established, and these standards are communicated to the owners in a reasonable and understandable way, it will be easier for the Board to maintain the uniform appearance of its building exteriors.
