Surveillance Systems on units exterior > HOA Forum

Unanswered

Active Topics

Forums

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions

Subject: Surveillance Systems on units exterior

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 1 of 3

Author

Messages

PWells
(Washington)

Posts:30

01/06/2007 2:42 PM
(Community of Townhomes in Washignton State, again) Ok heres the situation. An owner has an EX getting out of jail. The EX is considered a prediator. The owner is scared of the EX coming after them. So the owner has installed (with written approval) indoor Surveillance. As the EX use to live here as well. (Why the owner didn't move out to a new location is beyond me.) The other day that owner submitted a letter requesting to install 6 exterior Surveillance cameras to record and take pictures of all areas around their unit, their dettached garage, and mailbox/dumpster area. During the Board workshop we discussed the situation and request. But did not vote on it. We don't vote until the official HOA monthly meeting. Today I recieved an email from that owner informing they installed the system and it is active. And to prove it was active they attached a picture of me doing property inspection. Plus they did not have conscent from me for picture to be taken. Our CC&R's and House Rules Book states No owner or resident may install or alter the exterior of any building without written approval from the HOA Board of Directors. My fellow board members intend to deny the system as it will violate the neighbors right to privacy and may cause to many issues then this 1 owner realizes. I'm having a hard time finding laws that will prevent them from installing them besides the CC&R's and House Rules Book. Last time this owner contacted me they lashed at me because they were denied permission for altering a Load Barring wall. As our CC&R's and House Rules" states. Besides me not dealing with her. ANyone got some suggestions how to deal with this? PamW

WilliamT
(Arizona)

Posts:489

01/06/2007 3:05 PM
In AZ, and in other states, ther is no law that prevents a person from installing an overt, or a covert surveillance system. In AZ, you may not record another conversation without permission, unless you are a party to the conversation. Therefore, as long as the video surveillanve is silent, no voice recording, it is legal. You could check with your local law library and they will help you to find a law, or show you that no law exists preventing video surveillance recording. You could also pay for an attorney to tell you if there is or isn't such a law. If there is a law, then he can give you a copy of it. This seems to be a very special problem because the owner was concerned enough to install the system at his/her own expense. After checking the law and finding the surveillance legal, which will show that the board is protecting itself, I would suggest that the board hang back and let the person protect her/himself. The security also benefits the community at no cost. This could save a persons life.

RogerB
(Colorado)

Posts:3724

01/06/2007 4:36 PM
Pam, you stated "My fellow board members intend to deny the system as it will violate the neighbors right to privacy and may cause to many issues then this 1 owner realizes." What privacy would be violated and what are the many issues? If this was already discussed why wasn't a decision given to the owner promptly? I think your main issue to discuss is the liability your Board and HOA have if you make them take it down and then something bad happens to this owner!! Check your Covenants. Most have two primary purposes. To maintain property values and the quality of life of the owners.

Roger Borcherding Official HOATalk.com Sponsor DARCO Property Management (Colorado) (303) 925-0150 *See legal notice below (end of page) or go to www.hoatalk.com/legal

BrianB
(California)

Posts:1748

01/06/2007 4:46 PM
they violated the CC&Rs. If you allow that to happen, you set precedent. WHat will you say to the next person, who installs flood lights? They will claim security as well. Then, external alarms, motion sensors, etc. will come, and worse, all will come without board approval, because there is no apparent need to get it. As for taking your picture without consent, there is no requirement to get consent for taking pictures of people where no right to privacy expectation is present. If your HOA bans photography, you have a case, as it would be a violation of the CC&Rs. However, anyone can take anyone else's picture in a public location in america, without expressed consent (with a couple exceptions, see below for a biggie). Using that picture for PROFIT is a different story... as for laws, i do wish to point out that there is a nice federal law that DOES indeed prevent SOME external cameras from being mounted, used, etc.. I doubt it applies here, but as discussed in a similar post, the US Patriot Act can be used to criminalize the taking of photos or operations of cameras anywhere the government wishes it to. But, unless you are near an airport, harbor, courthouse, military base, police station, armory, etc., you are probably not going to be able to use that law.

RonaldW
(South Carolina)

Posts:900

01/06/2007 5:04 PM
Posted By BrianB on 01/06/2007 4:46 PM they violated the CC&Rs. If you allow that to happen, you set precedent. WHat will you say to the next person, who installs flood lights? That says it all. Unless there's a federal, state or local law that overrides your CC&Rs (such as the FCC ruling on dish antennas), you should declare them to be in violation of the CC&Rs and take appropriate action.

Ron SC

WilliamT
(Arizona)

Posts:489

01/07/2007 6:10 AM
Posted By RonaldW on 01/06/2007 5:04 PM That says it all. Unless there's a federal, state or local law that overrides your CC&Rs (such as the FCC ruling on dish antennas), you should declare them to be in violation of the CC&Rs and take appropriate action. The person made a request to the board and the board did not respond in a timely manner, as I understand it. I believe there is no question that this person is genuinly concerned for her safety, and the board should not be so hellbbound to the CC&R's to not realize that these cameras could save this persons life and may also benefit the rest of the community. If this were a gazebo that the person built, I would side with the board. But this is an immediate security concern, and in my opinion the board should be sympathetic to this cause. The ACC can issue a variance for this system so that it is not setting a precedence and that is what I feel they should do.

PatrickH
(California)

Posts:197

01/07/2007 8:52 AM
Hi Pam, It sounds like this owner is scared out their mind about the ex returning. To rush out and get a SIX camera security system installed is an obvious sign of how concerned they are. Even though you have rules about exterior alterations, I'd suggest that the Board "drag their feet" a little before making a decision. Put the security camera issue on an upcoming agenda to discuss the pros and cons of them. In the meantime, the ex may show up in the neighborhood and see all the cameras, which might cause them to back off. Security cameras are like restraining orders, they won't stop someone who is determined to do harm, but can be helpful in identifying and prosecuting someone after the crime. As a former Board member, I'd feel pretty bad if I forced someone in that situation to remove the cameras and a month later something terrible happened that would have been recorded if the cameras were in place.

BradP
(Kansas)

Posts:1742

01/07/2007 9:09 AM
Pam: Did they submit a formal request to have the cameras approved? In our association once a request is submitted we have 30 days to approve or it is approved by default. I don't know if that is the case here or not. You have zero expectation of privacy outside of your residence. Therefore the picture of you that was taken doing property surveillance does not need your approval and should be perfectly legal. We would all be surprised how often we are caught on tape in our daily lifes. Most people really don't pay attention to the places where cameras are, including outside. I know we are all concerned about enforcing CC&R's. However, assuming this ex comes back and harms this person and the association made them take down the cameras, what is the associations liability? I think you need to step back and look and see, are these cameras hurting anything? If not then why must they go. There are exceptions to every rule.

BrianB
(California)

Posts:1748

01/07/2007 10:50 AM
Brad, I actually agree with your thoughts.. however, to present the distaff side of the argument is beneficial, i think, to a debate. Who are the cameras hurting? No one. However, can I now use that to defend any other rule I might be inclined to break in the association? Who is my car, sitting on blocks in the driveway, actually hurting? Then leave me alone. WHo is my barking dog hurting? Who is my OSU flag harming? How is my purple painted green trimmed house hurting anyone? What is the association's liability? Good question. I would think "none", however, justice is stupid as well as blind in this country... Of note in this case: the camera is just as effective as a restraining order, or court order. It won't prevent anything from happening, it can't defend the woman. In fact, i would argue it gives a person a false (worse) sense of security, and makes her life more dangerous. I think that instead of doing smart things to protect oneself (changing locks, varying habits, having escorts or seeking friends for public forays, learning self defense, moving, watching for suspicous behaviors, preparing for confrontation, etc.), things like cameras, security systems, TRO's, etc. make people feel "safe", and they let their guard down, and develop sloppy/bad habits. Knowing she has a camera system worth several thousand dollars, will this person stop "watching" for suspicous behaviors herself? will she vary her driving habits and patterns? will she change her time to leave and return home? Or will she think "i have security, i don't need to do anything myself to be safer"? At least, if my HOA were sued for forcing the removal of the camera, that would be my first defense... proving that people who install such systems are more likely to be victims that people who practice self-vigilance.

WilliamT
(Arizona)

Posts:489

01/07/2007 11:28 AM
Brad, I believe your debate arguments are a bit of a stretch. Parking cars and purple lights have nothing to do with the type of security that this person is trying to achieve with her own money. She took the correct avenue by requesting the board to do something, and the board apparently drug it's feet and did nothing. So the person had to resort to self help, and she appears to have done it in a professional manner. There has been no argument stating that the cameras are creating a nuisance, or an unsightly blight on the community. There was just the person who thought his privacy rights were being violated with the camera, when in fact they were not. Whether or not the person has a false sense of security is her own problem to deal with. This seems to be a good economical solution since she can't get around the clock police protection, and probably cannot afford to hire full time body guards. We are well aware that perpetrators of crime are caught on camera every day and successfully prosecuted as a result. So why should we play devils advocate by picking out every argument in the book. A board has the authority to issue variances without prejudicing other decisions, and I think in this case, the board should look at what the owner is trying to accomplish and help her, and not look at a thousand ways why they should not. Board need to enforce the covenants equally and fairly. In this case, the board would be treating this person, and the community in a fair manner if the considered the following: 1. The person made the request to the board. 2. The board did not respond in a timely manner. 3. The person is in dire need of some form of security, or deterrent, or a means of identifing an attacker if that happens. 4. The cameras are legal. No one's privacy is invaded. 5. The cameras benefit the community as well as the individual who paid for the installation. 6. The camera may prevent a horrible crime from being committee. 7. The board is under no legal obligation for security as a result of the person installing the system. The bylaws probably speak to that subject. 8. The board can pass a resolution to issue a variance 9. The variance would not prejudice any other ACC violation. In my opinion, that type of understanding, concern for the people in the community, and flexibility, is what makes a good board.

BrianB
(California)

Posts:1748

01/07/2007 2:23 PM
William, i agree with all your points except one... I have seen no evidence that the board "dragged their feet". It may well be true, but all i saw was that they took the matter under consideration in their workshop, and intended to look into it at their monthly meeting. The owner installed the system prior to the monthly meeting. Until i know what the "time limit" is for ACC rulings (ie, one day, one week, one month), I don't think we can say the board stalled, failed their duty, dragged their feet, etc.. The ACC also has a set length of time to discuss and rule, and without knowing the by-laws, i can't say that they delayed anything. So, what that brings me to is that an owner asked for a variance, and then, WITHOUT WAITING for the process to happen, went ahead and violated the rules.

WilliamT
(Arizona)

Posts:489

01/07/2007 5:23 PM
Brian, you're correct. I reread the post and apparently the request came a few days before a workshop. They apparently discussed the situation at the workshop, but deferred a vote to the regular meeting. Now, by discussing the matter at a workshop, they in fact held an illegal board meeting. Board members can not discuss board business outside of a meeting. If they do then it is an illegal meeting because the members have not had notification of that meeting. While all of the board members were together at the board workshop, and since a persons safety was at stake, the board could have convened an emergency meeting and legally discussed the matter, and voted on it at that time. They could have determined that they did not have enough information to make a decision, postponed the decision until after more information was discovered. But they went beyond that. They actually made a decision. Note the statement that PamW makes: "My fellow board members intend to deny the system as it will violate the neighbors right to privacy and may cause to many issues then this 1 owner realizes." That is a decision they made, which they plan to formalize at the board meeting. They made an uneducated decision to deny the system, based on false assumptions, prior to doing any research, and obviously was not taking the owner's safety concerns into consideration. As I read the post again, it appears as if the poster was not sympathetic from the beginning about the problem the neighbor was facing. The comment in the first paragraph was "Why the owner didn't move to a new location is beyond me." Actually it's none of the board's business why the owner didn't move. PamW appears angry because her photo was taken, and was more concerned about violating someone's privacy than being concerned for someone's life. There is no indication that neighbors have complained about the cameras. Only the board members are complaining, according to the post. It also appears as if there was some prejudice against the owner because the board denied a previous request for something and the owner apparently was unhappy. My sense of the situation after re-reading the letter is that this board should be more concerned with their community residents safety. In my opinion the board should not try to stand in the way of this owner's attempt to protect herself, or himself. If this had happened in our board, as the president, I would have immediately called an emergency meeting and moved to approve a variance for this installation as a matter of concern for the safety of our community residents. I think this points up the importance of board member education. Every board member should know what constitutes a legal board meeting, and should know that the board does not get together at a workshop and discuss board business, because that constitutes a meeting which is illegal. It's illegal because the community members don't have notice of the meeting, and consequently are not able to attend. All members should know when an emergency meeting can be conducted and how it can be called. They should know the Bylaws and CC&R's. They should know the local and state laws that affect HOA's, including video surveillance, as well as the audio recording laws. They should take classes where available, study HOA text books, and communicate with other board members, like this forum, so they can learn that consideration for the community, and flexibility are important factors for the community. And very important they should learn to operate the HOA just like they would their own business and make sure that their decisions will pass the business judgment test that courts will apply to their decisions. By participating in this forum, with people like yourself, Roger, and all the other regular posters offering suggestions and advice, and the wealth of information to be searched for, board members that are interested in doing a great job for their community can learn to be great board members and community leaders.

BrianB
(California)

Posts:1748

01/07/2007 6:05 PM
Your last post also shows the differences we all exist under... I had a totally different idea in the first post of what a board "workshop" is than when i see it in your post. At first, i thought a workshop was simply a standard "working meeting" that the board might have routinely, do audit the books, make an agenda for the monthly meeting, write checks, etc... something normal with an emphasis on "work". Then, after reading your post, i realized that probably wasn't what they were doing.. they were at some function (a corporate workshop, educational opportunity, etc.) and started discussing the issue... made a decision, and decided to put it in stone at the monthly meeting. two very different scenarios, and i suspect your interpretation is more accurate. Thanks for posting, because it helps me broaden my horizon, and reminds me that differences in dialect, experience, terms, etc. are easy to forget.

RogerB
(Colorado)

Posts:3724

01/07/2007 6:49 PM
Pam, I have a question. Do your CC&Rs really state "No owner or resident may install or alter the exterior of any building without written approval from the HOA Board of Directors" ? The CC&R's I am familiar with give this power to an Architectural control committee, not the Board. If your Board is functioning as your ACC, then ACC approvals do not require a Board meeting, simply an ACC action. I think your Board members are potentially exposing themselves to personal legal trouble if they turn down this request. Please think about this!!!

Roger Borcherding Official HOATalk.com Sponsor DARCO Property Management (Colorado) (303) 925-0150 *See legal notice below (end of page) or go to www.hoatalk.com/legal

RonaldW
(South Carolina)

Posts:900

01/08/2007 6:09 AM
I’m going to disagree with many of you so flame me if you must. First, the mater of being photographed without permission is not the issue here so I’m not going to discuss it. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; If you don’t enforce the rules, you eventually will have no rules. If it’s in the CC&Rs or within the authority of the ACC to control exterior modifications, then the owner in question violated the “rules” by not making a formal request to allow installation of these cameras and waiting for approval (or denial if that’s the decision the board or ACC makes). If the board fails to take immediate and forceful action against the homeowner, they have lost the authority to enforce the CC&Rs or ACC decisions in the future and for any homeowner. Plain and simple, cut and dried. OK, the owner is fearful for her safety. I has been pointed out that security cameras do nothing at all to protect safety, they just provide a record of who inflicted the injury. Using the argument made by this person (and several others here), a person in fear of his or her safety could install burglar bars on the exterior windows and doors, light up the entire property with high intensity overhead lighting, and install a ten foot high chain link fence topped with razor wire around the property, all without consulting the BOD or ACC! What would have been a reasonable solution? First and foremost, the owner should have made a formal request to the BOD or ACC indicating that she felt that it was an emergency and requesting immediate action. The board and/or ACC should have met with her in person and allowed her to plead her case. If the board was inclined to go along with her request because of the perceived safety issue (remember the cameras will not insure safety but they may make the person feel safer), they should have granted her request (possibly modifying the number or locations of the cameras) on a temporary basis with the requirement that she return and justify the need for the cameras every three or six months and that she remove the cameras and repair any evidence of the installation once they were no longer needed or she could not provide justification for them (the ex is in jail, left town, she moves away, etc.) This should have been put in writing and signed by the board and the homeowner. What can be done now? As stated above, the homeowner violated the CC&Rs or ACC by making an exterior modification without permission. The board needs to stand firm on this. She should be sent a registered or certified letter pointing out the violation ad requiring her to appear in person at a special board meeting to justify her actions. At that time, the board can consider her situation and her justification as outlined in the paragraph above. If the board chooses to grant the request, she should still receive a letter of reprimand and warning or possibly a fine for the time the lights were in violation. Again, if the board fails to take firm action, they have lost the authority to enforce the CC&Rs and ACC decisions in the future. People make a choice to buy into a covenanted community because they have the assurance that the “rules” will be adhered to by their neighbors. The BOD has the responsibility to these members to ensure that the rules are followed. It is failing the members when it fails to enforce the CC&Rs.

Ron SC

WilliamT
(Arizona)

Posts:489

01/08/2007 6:50 AM
Ronald, I understand your position on enforcing the declaration. However, there are times when a board must be understanding and have some flexibility.

RonaldW
(South Carolina)

Posts:900

01/08/2007 6:56 AM
Posted By WilliamT on 01/08/2007 6:50 AM Ronald, I understand your position on enforcing the declaration. However, there are times when a board must be understanding and have some flexibility. Yes, when the owner follows the rules. Not when he/she blatantly ignores them. I didn't say to prohibit the cameras, I said to consider the merits of the request an approve or deny it on those merits. Also to require that they be removed when no longer needed. An what if, as I posted above, she had decided to install bars on the windows and high intensity lighting without approval?

Ron SC

BradP
(Kansas)

Posts:1742

01/08/2007 6:58 AM
Maybe I didn't catch it, but I thought this person did submit a request that has not been ruled on. Maybe the amount of time the ACC is allowed to rule passed and in the homeowner's opinion the request was automatically approved? If I am wrong please point it out I didn't catch that in all the posts. Ron, I would disagree with you on the fact that surveillance doesn't cut down on crime, I believe it does. However, in this case I agree with you, a spurned lover or ex really won't care who sees them, a police officer could probably be standing right there.

RonaldW
(South Carolina)

Posts:900

01/08/2007 7:08 AM
Posted By BradP on 01/08/2007 6:58 AM Maybe I didn't catch it, but I thought this person did submit a request that has not been ruled on. Maybe the amount of time the ACC is allowed to rule passed and in the homeowner's opinion the request was automatically approved? If I am wrong please point it out I didn't catch that in all the posts. Ron, I would disagree with you on the fact that surveillance doesn't cut down on crime, I believe it does. However, in this case I agree with you, a spurned lover or ex really won't care who sees them, a police officer could probably be standing right there. If the HOA didn't respond to the request in a timely manner as specified (and if specified) in the CC&Rs, then the homeowner was within her rights to install the cameras, but the board seriously damaged their ability to govern the HOA effectively. As for the security cameras cutting down on crime, "fake" ones work just a swell. Their effectiveness depends on their being seen and this goes against the looks of the community. Imagine I am trying to sell my home and prospective buyers see an elaborate security system with multiple cameras prominently displayed on the exterior of the neighboring house. Many prospective buyers will just drive away (from the entire neighborhood) You're right about crimes of passion. People have attacked others inside courtrooms when their passions overcame their common sense.

Ron SC

WilliamT
(Arizona)

Posts:489

01/08/2007 7:51 AM
If we say that a board should be flexibile when the owner obeys the rules, then I fail to see where the flexibility. The inflexibility of many boards, and the heavy handed treatement of members is one of the reasons many states have begun to regulate the HOA industry, and others will be joining them. The board is there to serve the community, and that means having compassion when necessary, and to work with individuals in certain unusual circumstances. The issue of being photographed is a very important issue here. That's because it was stated by the author that she felt her and others privacy rights were being violated, and it appears to be the primary reason the board decided to deny the issue, even before they researched the surveillance laws. After they made the decision they were asking this forum about state laws that prohibit surveillance so as to justify their position. The secondary reason appears to be that the board member is still upset at the owner because the owner verbalized her unhappiness with the board refusal to grant a previous request. The owner apparently respected the previous decision and did not make the changes that were denied. However, this issue was one of safety, and the owner knew that action had to be taken, and reverted to self help. Perhaps she received word that the board had made the decision against her at the workshop meeting. People do talk and word spreads fast. If the owner were aware of the post that the OP made here, she/he may even have grounds for a law suit against those board members individually, for negligence in conducting their business. They made a decision at this workshop meeting based on the incorrect assumption that surveillance cameras were illegal, and delayed notifying the member that they were not going to approve the request. What is not an issue is installing burglar bars, bright lights and all the other things mentioned. That is conjecture and speculation. The owner did not do that, so it is not an issue in this case. The surveillance system can and may save lives, because they act as a deterrent as well as a recording device. An example of how it acts as a deterrent was recently shown in Scottsdale, AZ. With traffic surveillance cameras installed on the freeways, the average speed recorded was about 67 mph in a 65 mph zone. They disabled the cameras and publicized that they were disabled. Then the average speed increased to 76 mph in the 65 mph zone. Those cameras were a clear deterrent to speeding so they are going to reactivate them. The owner did make a request and stated that she was fearful, yet the board did not convene a meeting to discuss this issue. They could have called an emergency meeting so the board could take immediate action, or they could have called a special meeting so the members could all be present to hear and give input to the discussion. They did not do either. Instead, they chose to discuss the matter, as a board, at a workshop. This amounted to an illegal meeting, in my opinion, because discussion of an important matter was discussed without an emergency meeting being called, and without members being able to be present. They actually made the decision at that workshop meeting to deny the request, and to take the formal vote at the next regular meeting. But we don't know if the next meeting is this month or two months from now. A board does not dilute their authority when they issue a variance. The next door neighbor can request to install a camera for some reason, and if the board thinks the reason is not sufficient, they can deny the request. All variances are issued without prejudice so they are not setting a precedent. I'll continue to believe that board members should be well educated in all aspects of HOA operation; should be working for the community without any personal agenda, and understand that they need to have the compassion and understanding to be able to be flexible enough to move fast when necessary, and to issue variances when it is appropriate. We have a situation where an owner submitted plans to build a 6 foot stucco fence at the sidewalk line to completely enclose their front yard. It was turned down by the ACC. No other home in the 2000 home master community has such a fence. The lots are all less than 1/4 acre. The person built the fence anyway. The ACC wants the board to require the fence to be removed. A couple of board members (this is the master board which I am not on. I'm on a sub association board) want to give a variance to get it off the table. The ACC wants to stand firm. The fence serves no special security purpose. The person is not in any danger. The fence is completely out of sync with the community, and the neighbors do not like it. This is a case where I feel the board should stand firm and not issue a variance, but to require the fence to be removed. The fence is not in our sub community and has no direct affect on our sub community. But since there are no special circumstances, I believe the fence should be removed. The cameras in the discussion are a different matter altogether and do warrant a variance, in my opinion.

BradP
(Kansas)

Posts:1742

01/08/2007 8:03 AM
William: I agree 99.9% with your post. My main issues with this and I have said numerous times, did she file a request and was it approved or disapproved in the appropriate time. The board needs to distance themselves from this issue, that is why you have an ACC and in my opinion the board failed miserably in this case. If anyone thinks they have the right to privacy outside they are sadly mistaken. You have a right to privacy in your home, in a bathroom/lockerroom and in a changing room. Other than that you are free game to be recorded.

PWells
(Washington)

Posts:30

01/09/2007 10:12 AM
Our CC&R's states: "11.5.2 Common Element Alteration. May not change the appearance of the Common Elements or the exterior appearance of a Unit without permission of the Association; 11.7 Exterior Appearance. In order to preserve a uniform appearance to the Building, and the Common and Limited Common Elements visible to the public, the Board shall require and provide for tha painting and other decorative finish of the Building, lanais or patio/yard areas, or other Common or Limited Common Elements, and prescribe the type and color of such decorative finishes, and may prhoibit, require or regulate any modification or decoration of the Building, lanais, patio/yard areas or other Common or Limited Common Elements undertaken or proposed by any Owner. This power of the Board may also require use of a uniform color and kind of Unit window covering (Including draperies, blinds, shades, etc.) visible from the exterior or from Common Element." So as I said... It's a difficult situation. This owner has already been fined for several other CC&R violations. Plus this owner use to be on the Board but was removed during the Annual meeting. Which were not disclosed in any notes. The Board has discussed it but had not come up with a final descision. This Owner submitted their request 3 days before installing the system. It's frustrating! Pam W

RonaldW
(South Carolina)

Posts:900

01/09/2007 10:18 AM
Posted By PWells on 01/09/2007 10:12 AM It's a difficult situation. This owner has already been fined for several other CC&R violations. Plus this owner use to be on the Board but was removed during the Annual meeting. Which were not disclosed in any notes. The Board has discussed it but had not come up with a final descision. This Owner submitted their request 3 days before installing the system. It's frustrating! Pam W This owner has no concern for the CC&Rs and doesn't believe she is obligated to adhere to them. She should be fined for installing the cameras without written approval and given a set number of days to either remove them or get written permission from the HOA. She is not "above the rules". If she threatens to go to court, let her. She did not make a good faith effort to have the cameras approved.

Ron SC

DanaB1
(Connecticut)

Posts:147

01/14/2007 4:52 PM
WilliamT, you are a very smart man, you look outside the box. You have vast experience and a very good head on your shoulders. I do have one question for you; in one of your posts you mention that the resident was denied moving a load bearing wall and that she obeyed that ruling. Do we know that for sure unless someone has been in her unit? Other than that statement you were dead on. Pamw, you said, "and may prhoibit, require or regulate any modification" You can regulate what modifications are made. I think that this owner is a thorn in the boards side, every association has one, and you folks just b-lined to a no answer as WilliamT said. You should be in contact with your association attorney over this. Spend the money now. If the EX comes back, depending on his frame of mind; nothing will stop him and he'll kill her in the yard or inside the house, cameras or not. But as Brian(?) pointed out, the tape will help convict him. OR if he wants her dead but wants to try to not end up in jail (something he is not too good at doing since he already is in jail) than he will see the cameras and stalk her instead, waiting for a private moment to harm her. Pam, perhaps the cameras are the lessor of two evils. If she got a hand gun she might accidentally shoot you on your on one of your "inspection tours" as opposed to only "shooting" your picture. Call your lawyer.

DanaB1
(Connecticut)

Posts:147

01/14/2007 4:53 PM
Your association lawyer. :-)

PWells
(Washington)

Posts:30

01/14/2007 5:43 PM
After the monthly meeting we decided to have our attorney get involved. This owner became aggressive at the board during the meeting. Since the cameras may cause a major liablity to our HOA, our insurance and leave a hugh can of worms open for owners to sue for numerous reasons. We've decided to take legal action. If this owner had waited and gone through the proper procedures. The board might have given a different decision or even offer a different solution. No one will ever know. Thanks all for your input. PamW

DanaB1
(Connecticut)

Posts:147

01/14/2007 6:15 PM
"Since the cameras may cause a major liablity to our HOA, our insurance and leave a hugh can of worms open for owners to sue for numerous reasons." Pam, I never would have thought that some surveilance cameras could cause such commotion. It's starting to sound like the owner won't be the only one looking for a restraining order. Watch your back. Best of luck. Please keep us abreast of the fall out. Dana

RonaldW
(South Carolina)

Posts:900

01/14/2007 6:36 PM
Posted By DanaB1 on 01/14/2007 6:15 PM "Since the cameras may cause a major liablity to our HOA, our insurance and leave a hugh can of worms open for owners to sue for numerous reasons." Pam, I never would have thought that some surveilance cameras could cause such commotion. It's starting to sound like the owner won't be the only one looking for a restraining order. Watch your back. Best of luck. Please keep us abreast of the fall out. Dana In my opinion, it's not the fact that the owner installed cameras, it's the fact that she ignored the CC&Rs and the HOA, that is, she made an exterior modification without prior approval. If she is allowed to do this, why can't anyone else? And why stop with cameras, why not steel bars on the windows? HID lighting? Chain link fencing? It's all the same. The HOA is sometimes forced to take a stand, otherwise there are no effective rules and anything goes. When you buy into a covenanted community, you are agreeing to abide by the CC&Rs. If your circumstances change and you feel you can no longer abide by the CC&Rs, you have no right to ignore them, you may need to relocate to an area that fits your new circumstances.

Ron SC

DanaB1
(Connecticut)

Posts:147

01/14/2007 6:50 PM
Ron, By no means am I condoning what the owner did, far from it. I am having a major problem in our complex with other board members, no less, bending rules to fit their personal gain. The answer is always, "What's the big deal?!" I agree with you totally. I was just surprised at the fact that the "cameras" could cause so many legal ramifications. Dana

BrianB
(California)

Posts:1748

01/14/2007 9:07 PM
Think of it this way Dana: it's not the camera that causes the problem, it is the fact that an owner did not follow procedure, and decided to not live by the contract she signed. Remove Camera and replace with "Ugly Painting" or "Loud Windchime" or "Car on Blocks", and the thread is pretty much the same (except for the taking of pictures).

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 1 of 3

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > Surveillance Systems on units exterior