Home › Forums › Where I Stand › Barbara Holland Item Regarding ARC Violations
- This topic is empty.
January 25, 2021 at 12:09 pm #6195Rana GoodmanKeymaster
A short time ago, early in January, Barbara Holland, who publishes a weekly column in the Sunday RJ, published two questions regarding HOA compliance issues. She noted that attorney John Leach had published an article on the same subject a few years prior.
A reader asked if their HOA could fine them for a Gazebo that had been in their yard for more than 15 years…. Another asked if they could be fined for fence covering, also there several years with no issues.
The reply was that in the piece Mr. Leach wrote about “the enforce-ability of an ARC violation against an existing or new homeowner is dependent on several factors including but not limited to the length of time the home has been in violation. If more than a year, case law supports the conclusion that the association could not successfully enforce the violation.”
This is not the stance that SCA has taken since the ARC violations began again and would apply to several homeowners that were forced to remove “their violating issue,” some at quite an expense.
A perfect example would be the homeowner who had a beautiful stone bench in the front yard for more than ten years and was made to remove it when the SCA inspections began again. The owner had to hire workers, due to the weight to move it to the rear yard.
Another would be the owners in Model Village whose fence was lined with a perforated pliable liner, painted to match the iron fencing. From the street it was almost invisible so how the ARC inspector happened to notice it driving by is interesting since the area sat back quite a distance from the road.
The SCA Architectural Review guidelines state that only perforated steel is acceptable to line the fences. When the owners suggested that their method, which had been in place many years, was a more attractive option that would not rust as the steel would and, in their point of view owners of the community should be allowed an alternative material. ARC stood their ground and would not budge, the owners were made to remove it.
Perhaps it is time that the ARC and the board of directors revisited the compliance rules again, what do you think readers?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.