Dogs

Our association only allows one dog, under 25 pounds. Surprise, surprise, we have an owner that has a 50 pound dog! Our Board does not "police" the community, but when a homeowner sends a signed request, they take action. In a letter to the violator, the Board provided the specific CC&R and city ordinances, which homeowners already have a copy of, and explained that it is their responsibility to be aware of and in compliance of these rules. The owner has to decide what action they need to take to be in compliance (e.g., move, sell their pet, etc.) - this is really their problem, not the Board's or other homeowners that comply with the covenants.

This homeowner responded in a letter that the builder allowed him to have this dog. Unable to prove otherwise, (the Board didn't believe him, but couldn't disprove it either) he was reluctantly permitted to keep the dog. In the Board's reply letter, they again stated in detail the rules he is in violation of, and warned that he would have to remove the dog if he further violated the rules (cleaning up immediately after the dog, etc.) or if the Board received any additional complaints about the dog (barking, trespassing on private property, etc.). He was told if something happened to the dog, he could not replace it with a dog over 25 pounds. The homeowner had to agree to these terms, sign the letter and return it.

We also have a homeowner that has 2 dogs and the Board will take action upon receipt of a written complaint. Our Board members are volunteers and they work very hard. It is the responsibility of all association members to bring forth issues that affect them when it requires Board action. No complaints, requests for action or service are accepted verbally - they must be in writing and signed.

Also, check your CC&Rs for details on assessing homeowners a fine when they violate the covenants. If applicable, include this in your violation letter so it is clear what steps will be taken if there are repeated violations. (When we advise that a lien will be put on their property when a homeowner is in arrears, we usually receive payment within a few days.) Per our CC&Rs, we also suspend voting rights when a homeowner is behind in payments or have unresolved violations.

My personal feelings, I would assess homeowners an additional monthly fee if they (or renters) have a dog. Our association spends a huge amount of our budget maintaining the lawn and plantings, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know which owners have dogs. Thirty years ago I moved from a private home to a condo and had to give up my small dog. It was difficult, but I had to comply with the rules. You need to uphold your covenants and the rights of all homeowners - you are not looking to make life difficult for violators, they are the ones making your job difficult.

I hope this helps.

Linda J - My response to DonV applies to your post as well. Believe me, I understand the importance of rules and respect them and adhere to them to the letter in my association. However, the problem as you have explained becomes everyone's when there is an unrealistic rule. I believe your association has one with the weight restriction aspect of your rule. An association's resale values do not benefit from heavy turnover of real estate. I believe there is a correlation to your your rule. What propective buyers are your association going to attract or turnaway with such a stringent weight restriction rule. Are you going to request that owners of dogs get them weighed before purchase? Unless there is something I am missing about the way your association is physically layed out that would limit a larger sized dog and their owner from navigating the property. Your association isn't a co-op is it? As for your last paragraph, your personal feelings regarding an owner having a dog and the fact that you'd impose a fine for it is in contrast to your governing docs which allow 1 dog. Not to mention you can't impose a fine for something that is not a rule. That's why it's important there be rules and they be well written and realistic. I don't think it's realistic you or anyone has to give up their dog to live in a place. I would not consider that a good investment. As for determining who has a dog based upon the condition of the lawn outside...be careful in forming any conclusions upon this. It is possible that other unit owners are walking there dogs on lawns and planting beds outside other owners units? It might not be the case but it is possible. Fines cannot be levied for damage that is not witnessed or very well documented. GeraldT1

Brian B - Well put. Leash laws could be expanded.

LOL - we're back to controlling the dogs. Harold

Linda,

I agree with Geralds's opinion that a 50 pound rule is unrealistic. I have an 8 pound Yorkie so a 50 pound rule would not affect me.

We are all here to exchange ideas and learn from others who have opinions that differ from ours. If we fail to open our minds to digest opposing opinions then we restrict our own learning experience.

Now, suppose I moved into your community and have a 2 year old, 45 pound dog that I paid $2000 for, and after two years this dog has become part of my family. I was aware of the rule, and had a statement from a Vet who verified that this dog had no expectation of being heavier than 45 pounds. That gives me a 5 pound cushion to the 50 pound rule, so I complied fully with the CC&R.

But surprise, surprise, in another year my new family member has gained 10 pounds and is now 5 pounds over the 50 pound limit, and I cannot get the weight off him no matter what I try.

Let's say that my dog happenss to be a golden lab and is one of the friendliest, lovable dogs that one has ever met. He is on leash and supervised when outside, and when I take him for walks I carry and use a pooper scooper. I do not allow him to urinate on neighbors lawns. So my dog and I are good rule abiding citizens of the community.

Now, is my friendly lovable golden lab any more objectionable or dangerous to the community at 55 pounds than he was at 45 pounds? Of course not. He just happens to have a metabolic weight problem, like many of us humans do.

If the Board took me to court, or if I took the Board to court because I felt I was being hassled by an unrealistic rule, would a jury make me get rid of my dog, or allow the Board to fine me because he had exceeded his expected maximum weight and weighs 55 pounds instead of 50? I doubt it. I expect that once a jury saw my dog, the board would immediately lose their case. And what a waste of community and personal funds that rule would have caused.

That's why, in my opinon, this 50 pound rule is unrealistic. Many boards have unrealistic rules of all types. The rules should reflect the desires and needs of the majority in the community, not the desires of a minority. Boards need to understand this and from time to time review their CC&R's to make sure the rules are up to date with the desires and needs of the community.

Directors serving on boards should not push their personal agenda, they need to put aside their personal desires and work to make sure they serve the majority of the community.

An example of outdated rules is not allowing pickup trucks. That rule today is unrealistic because a very large percentage of families have a pickup truck, and they look every bit as nice as a sedan. In the cab, they are as plush as a sedan, but they have a bed in which a family can go to the local hardware store and bring stuff home without renting a truck or paying for delivery. With so many families having a pick up truck now, the no-pickup rule is fast becoming unrealistic.

Whenever one makes a post on a public forum, s/he must expect that others will weigh in with their opinion, and a reasonable person will listen to those opinions and learn from what others are saying. One may not like the others opinion, but must respect that everyone has the right to state their opinion. By listening to the opposing opinions, a person may decide later that their own opinion was wrong to begin with, or they may decide that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

But please remember that everyone has the right to respond, and only the forum host and moderators have the authority to tell someone not to respond, and they will only do that if the responder is making a personal attack instead of stating their opinion.

Gerald did not make a personal attack. He stated an opinion.

I would respectfully suggest that you not close your mind to the opinions that others offer on any subject here. You don't have to like or accept the opinion, but with an open mind you may learn something from listening to others.

Bill

WilliamT and HOATalk: So, you consider my association's rules "unrealistic" and that I am "not posting positive content in my response". My original response to Don was very positive, realistic and examples of what our association has experienced. But, you think it's okay for GeraldT1 to sound off on constructive replies to a question initiated by another member of HOATalk? If this is the true response of HOATalk, and you think I am not being open minded when Gerald used this member's forum to voice his opinion about the way my association rules are set up, then you are changing the entire format of what this site was from the beginning. When I first joined, an HOATalk member would ask other members for their experience on a subject. A member would give their response, another member would expand on the previous members' response or provide their experiences, and so on. But never would one member take it upon themself to tell another member that they were being unrealistic and proceed to bash someone for their association's rules (muzzling dogs by BrianB; LOL we're back to controlling dogs by HaroldS). It was up to the original member to disect the opinions of others, and decide what would work for their association.

Of course, there will be various opinions, and members will not agree with everyone's rules, but shouldn't a forum like this demand respect for the individual association community's rules. Not all associations are the same, some have elderly homeowners, some are made up of primarily young families. I am 53 years old, my husband is 66. We have grandchildren and love them immensely, but I would not have built a home in an association that was oriented around young families - been there, done that. I am in a time of my life, that I prefer to live in a community that is mostly retirees. You would more than likely not build or buy a townhome in my community. And, as I stated, with your interests I would not like you to live in my community and try to change the CC&Rs to suit you. I built my home here because I wanted to live in this environment, without children everyday, and without large pets. This is the United States of America. My husband spent 33 years of his life serving in the military to protect our freedom, and we should be able to live where we want to without other people telling us that we are "unrealiatic" people.

Apparently the format of HOATalk has changed and you are allowing a lot of "side bar" talk amongst the members. This, in my humble opinion, is not constructive at all. It is not helpful to the originator of a question or other members to listen to the banter between other members that is totally not constructive to the forum. If this is the case, please let me know and I will resign my membership and you can continue to make this a very biased website.

Not sure if I really should jump in at this point....but here goes. Our covenants pretty much ban any 'livestock' and animals of that nature.

Personally, I do not understand the weight limit on dogs...a dog is a dog, no matter how much it weighs. They all have the same doggie habits that bother people. When there is a problem with a dog, it usually has to do with the owner (i.e., barking, using a neighbor's lawn to do it's business, biting, running loose, etc.). I agree that leash laws and the like should be the center of the rules because no matter what size dog you have, it is the owner that is responsible.

Another issue I can see is that of a service dog (i.e., dogs used by the blind, etc). How can you discriminate against that? Seems like the association would violate some type of fair housing rule.

I am a cat girl and would have a problem with the limit of two cats. I have four and they are inside 24/7. Why should that bother anyone? How does that decrease the value of the neighborhood?

When it comes to pets, it's an emotional topic. I believe in enforcing the people, and not the size of the pet.

agree with ed, and julie.

and to answer the question about service animals, federal law (the ADA) trumps any local laws about such animals, so no HOA could bar them.

a second tactic i have seen used to some effect is to make the claim that a service animal is not a pet. it is a working animal, and thus, doesn't fall under any rules that regulate pets.

Try searching this forum for: pit bulls

You will find a great discussion on aggressive breeds.

Here's the link: http://www.hoatalk.com/Forum/tabid/55/view/topic/forumid/1/postid/2909/Default.aspx