That should already be part of the bylaws in any multi family situation. Shared plumbing and shared fire risk and all of the other associated shared structural risks definitely should require approval for interior remodels. Every condo that exists requires that. Just because your condo happens to not be called a condo is not a good reason for it to be exempt from getting an approval for a remodel.

Structural, I understand, but interior design? Yikes!

Not multi-family residence, not condo. Legal definition is a PUD, single family attached, which is a much different story legally. A condo is not a specific type of building, but an ownership structure. Just FYI. We went through a legal battle about that very definition not too long ago when the HOA tried to change the ownership structure to a condo. The city, county, and my lawyer did not take kindly to saying it's a condo.

In fact, such a rule in the CC&Rs would be pretty typical if you assume that the units are condos. But, since they are SFRs, it's a different story.

Our HOA got a lot more strict after an owner's contractor put a nail through the sprinkler system and flooded 4 units. This was before we moved in. I am glad for the restrictions (that didn't stop us from renovating). And glad for the insurance requirements. You do have insurance requirements, right?

Talk to your attorney about it, generally, the change you are describing is a struggle to get correctly implemented.

The courts basically demand that a fairly specific set of standards be developed for approval. Those standards usually have to be spelled out and objectively applied. So your board can't just say we want architectural review of changes, and I would tell them to go pound sand if they did say that. Nor can they require that you hire an architect when it isn't necessary.

Using your light fixture as an example, the board would need to say something like, "light fixtures suspended from the ceiling no more than 18" and weighing no more 35 lbs can be submitted to the board for approved installation 7 days prior to the commencement of the work. Items hanging lower than 18" and weighing more than 25 lbs must include an engineer's approval and meet the standards attached in schedule A for approval and must be submitted to the board at least 30 days prior to work commencement."

In the end, they can demand approval for just about anything, but the guidelines for acceptable must be established prior to the start of your design process. They can't just say we want to approve everything and then arbitrarily deny it when you had no guidelines for approval.

The work and trouble of actually developing interior architectural standards usually drives most boards away from legally enforceable restrictions.

Yep, I'm having an issue understanding why putting in an over-weight chandelier in this situation should be anybody's issue but the home owners. If it collapses, how is that going to affect anyone but the homeowner?

Guess if a chandelier needs to get approval for its weight, soon any furniture would need approval, as a piece could be too heavy to crash through the floor and land on the lower level..... Control freaks could always find reasons to mind others' business at the assumption home owners could not think for themselves.

Read Houzz. Most can think. But they mostly have horrible ideas based on wishes and dreams. How many posts start out. “I just removed this wall and want to know what color gray to paint the room.” Meanwhile, the second story slowly sags into the living room and the electrical wires dangle.

The new CC&Rs say that everything except "decorations" require approval. I wouldn't be against that, per se. I do see the merit of having architectural approval for some matters. Since there is a shared wall, theoretically a change to something structural could affect a neighbor adversely. That being said, our units are pretty much self contained - they are framed out and built as individual units. Our shared walls are actually two walls side by side and share a roof.

Because of the history of the HOA's slow approval process I am reticent to accept it. We once submitted an approval request for a new front door because ours was damaged when we bought the house. It took 4 months - and it was only brought to a vote because we attended the HOA meeting and made a fuss. We had a broken window that took us 3 weeks to even begin work because we had to get approval to replace it. I would be most worried that our HOA would not be able to handle the influx of new requests. The HOA board, while reasonable and well-meaning, is simply not prepared to scale.

But waiting a couple extra months to start a project isn't the end of the world... I am worried about our ability to repair. We spoke to the CC&R attorney who said that many repairs, such as drywall and leak fixes, would require approval.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Or, "bullsh*t baffles brains." Bury them under it.

Bry911... That's the best advice I've heard on here for a while now. I love it!

It’s unfortunate that some responses to HOAs here are so...dramatic, to put it mildly. HOAs exist to protect the common interest of all homeowners within a multifamily residential project that includes shared walls. Whether you like it or not, HOAs are here to stay.

A well-functioning, experienced HOA is not going to be intimidated or fooled by disingenuous ruses like the one bry911 suggested. And yes, you can certainly pay out of your own pocket for legal counsel to dispute provisions within a CC&R. Just remember HOA dues pay for the HOA’s counsel as well. By all means, contribute to the lawyers’ coffers.

Our HOA is pretty large and has members with fairly diverse skill sets. There are board members with transactional and litigation experience, both in the private (big law, prior GCs) and public sectors. Our HOA has a very competent attorney that I like as well. I’d be amused to see an owner try a ruse like that on our HOA.

It's unfortunate that some believe HOA's to be something they simply are not. Well functioning HOA's can be an asset to homeowners but in a review of HOA's Harvard Law found that HOA's with restrictive covenants are detrimental to property values more than they help them.

It is ridiculous to assume that something designed and ran by homeowners can really be effective at restrictions. I assure you as someone who went to law school, who is a landlord, and developer of multi-family residences I have assisted in developing several HOA's. They are ridiculously hard and time consuming to get right. What you are calling a ruse is the minimum to be effective and keep you out of legal trouble.

HOA's typically create massive legal exposure for homeowners and eventually the ambulance chasers are going to figure it out. Very few actually understand the pitfalls in restrictive HOA's, the last thing you want is any kind of unnecessary approval. Let's take a look at the OP's door situation. The OP's proposal for a new door took 4 months, so now the standard better be four months, because if the standard turns out to be 30 days, the OP has a cause of action for discrimination or harassment against the HOA.

Suppose they deny someone's request for a change and allow someone else's. Even if there was good reason, without an objective standard to reference, prove it was fair (I have been on the losing end of that one before).

Yes, well-functioning HOAs are difficult to get right, and many suffer because they lack expertise or resources or know when to seek outside help. But examples of poorly managed HOAs don’t obviate the need for rules that protect the interest of all homeowners in a multifamily project.

The permitting rules for attached single family residential projects are protection for other homeowners. There is some useful redundancy in permit verification but that is all. Common wall single family residences do not have the interdependence of condominiums, or even some duplexes. The water, sewer and gas lines in attached single family homes are no more connected than the water, sewer and gas in separated single family residences. Each unit will have their access taken from the main gas, water and sewer line with a shutoff in their home.

Disconnection and damage of any of these systems will not directly effect the attached units. Certainly, a fire in one unit will affect other units, but then you are better off advocating for rules against romantic dinners and smoking than you are against hanging pictures. They share a common fire wall and a roof... Limiting projects that affect those areas are perfectly reasonable, but other limits are already established in the required permitting.

Whether or not HOA's fulfill some higher purpose is outside the scope of this discussion. In this instance broad and largely redundant requirements shouldn't be managed by an HOA that isn't up to the task of approving a door change in 4 months. It is that simple, I am not having the discussion that you seem to want to engage in, the value of HOA's... The OP doesn't care about the larger discussion and this was not intended as a discussion on the value of HOA's, the OP gave information on a specific situation with the expectation of useful advise and not a discussion on the larger picture. If you want to have a discussion where you advocate for HOA's start your own thread, I may or may not participate in that thread, but until then, I will advocate for the person asking the question.

Have a great day, and please do not feel the pressing need to "win" this discussion... If that is your goal, I will happily declare you the victor right now.

Regardless of the differences between a building-type association and a townhouse association, doesn't a change like this to the documents typically require a vote by all the homeowners or share holders?

When someone wanted to own a dog in my former association, they agreed to take on all expenses related to changing the documents, but it had to be put to a vote by all members of the association, not just the board members. And in our case this could not be effected by a simple majority of one vote in favor, it required a special majority, but I do not remember the percentage off hand.

Serious question: if you buy a new light fixture, bring it home from the store, park your car in your garage, carry the new light fixture through the garage-to-house door, install the light fixture, remove the old light fixture by putting it in your car and driving to the dump... who would know?

palimpsest, whether rule changes require unanimity of all shareholders depends on the governing documents and the local statutes that govern HOAs. Naturally, the answer varies community to community, state by state.

Without knowing the language of the declarations and of the proposed changes, the applicable statutes, and other facts surrounding the situation in question, it is next to impossible (and in my opinion, highly improper and inadvisable) to communicate any specific advice, online or otherwise. Well, some people are very comfortable dispensing “helpful”, specific, and...colorful...advice, in absence of a number of facts. But they also went to law school and have years of residential development experience, apparently, so they must know better.

Hello Pity - the problem here is that these are not condos, but independent houses, with separate walls and systems which provide a fair amount of protection for the individual owners. The introduction of a whole layer of rules about interior decor is pretty intrusive and, so far as I can see, largely unnecessary. The major structural issues are already covered, and the too-large chandelier or a nail through the drywall will have zero impact on the neigbouring homes. So what exactly is the point?

The owners have every right to be concerned, and if it were me, I'd be saying to the condo committee, if we agree to this then you will provide clear and comprehensive guidelines of what will and will not be allowed, you will stick to those guidelines in your decision-making, and you will agree to observe a strict timetable for responding to requests - and that timetable will be numbered in days, not weeks or months.

Bringing us back to the kind of thing bry suggested.

jmm1837, I agree that homeowners have a right to approach their HOAs with concerns regarding proposed rule changes or governance issues. That said, I wouldn’t approach the HOA with the mindset and recommendation offered by some here, especially in absence of facts. But that’s just me.