A service of:
Community123.com
Professional websites for HOAs & condos, since 2004
🎁 1st year FREE for HOATalk members! →
← Return to Topics List

Interpretation of ambigous phrases in CCRs

Started by JoeW3 • 12 replies • 1796 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

JoeW3 (Texas)
Posts: 2
Posted:
The CCRs state: Vehicles. Trailers, tents, boats, recreational vehicles or other vehicles are permitted to be kept on a Lot after construction of the residence; however, only if they are screened from view of adjacent and surrounding Lots and from the street and stored behind the set back lines. Any such trailer, tent, boat, recreational vehicle or other vehicle must be kept parked, stored or maintained within an enclosed structure or a screened area that prevents or substantially limits the view thereof from adjacent Lots or streets.

The problem we are having is establishing guidelines to define the phrase "...substantially limits the view thereof...". Does anyone have a suggestion on what to publish as guidelines for the ACC? I am a member of the ACC.
JohnB7 (South Carolina)
Posts: 176
Posted:
'....or substantially limits....' is VERY vague and subject to interpretation

either remove this phrase ... or ... let the games begin
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:

Agree with John,
Substantially limits --from who? From where? Remove it. All limits must be clearly spelled out.
JoeW3 (Texas)
Posts: 2
Posted:
CCRs can only be amended by a 80% vote until January 1, 2020. This makes the CCRs vertually unamendable. As a result we are looking for guidelines or recommendations to help clarify this item.
MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By JoeW3 on 09/24/2008 12:01 PM
The CCRs state: Vehicles. Trailers, tents, boats, recreational vehicles or other vehicles are permitted to be kept on a Lot after construction of the residence; however, only if they are screened from view of adjacent and surrounding Lots and from the street and stored behind the set back lines. Any such trailer, tent, boat, recreational vehicle or other vehicle must be kept parked, stored or maintained within an enclosed structure or a screened area that prevents or substantially limits the view thereof from adjacent Lots or streets.

The problem we are having is establishing guidelines to define the phrase "...substantially limits the view thereof...". Does anyone have a suggestion on what to publish as guidelines for the ACC? I am a member of the ACC.

Joe,

I would think your CCRs also give the BOD the power to interpret any article of the CCRs. So, all the board needs to do is discuss this phrase and come up with their interpretation, put it into the form of a rule and adopt it. Make certain any board-adopted rule is sent to all the members of the assn.

DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:

Joe,
You might want to search the section that states that your CC&Rs cannot be amended until 2020. Most likely that is when the CC&Rs expire and will have to be renewed. Your association most certainly can make amendments before that. You just may not be looking in the correct place as Developers always make the ability to work on the CC&Rs by the association after the official turnover.
SusanW1 (Michigan)
Posts: 5,202
Posted:
Mary was right - the CCRs state that ther must be screening; further doecuments of the HOA can define HOW. Your Committee can come up with actual measurements, construction guidelilnes, etc and submit them to to board for adoption as a Rule.

I don't suggest they be in the bylaws, since they are problably going to have to be changed in the future, as certain definitions of "vehicles" change.
KirkW1 (Texas)
Posts: 1,665
Posted:
Perhaps because it is 2:30am and I am awake, I am argumentative. But I think that everyone here is wrong, wrong, wrong here.

I fail to see a need to clarify anything. The idea is that you want the thing screened from view when standing in the street, or in a neighbor's yard. But the word substantially is used because otherwise if one little part is seen when I stand on my tipie toes in on this dime sized spot...

Substantially screened from view means that you probably won't notice the thing there. You may be able to see it if you are looking for it. You may see the top peeking ever so slightly above the fence. If the screen is bushes then perhaps you can see it if you squat down. But normal people won't comment about the eyesore of a trailer. They simply won't even notice said object unless for some reason they are actually looking in that direction.

Come on folks, the world is going to the pits because everyone is afraid of a little subjectivity. You have a committee and they should each take a look and vote what they truly believe. Is the thing well screened, or needs improvement? Give members two minutes to explain why they think it either does or doesn't meet the spec. Take the vote and move on.

For that matter, when you just aren't quite sure, go speak to a neighbor (gasp) and ask them what they think. If they say "no big deal" vote thumbs up. If they say "oh no, that won't do" then vote down. If on the fence, they don't care enough to complain anyway and vote up.

Contrary to the zero tolerance movement, discretion is reasonable. Removing discretion is insulting the the members of the committee and dehumanizes the aspect of community living. The whole point is to make the place a better community. And better communities have human nuance.
BrianB (California)
Posts: 2,820
Posted:
Substantially is 78%*.

So, calculate the average square inches seen of the object without the screen in place, then calculate the square inches seen with the screen in place, and if 78% or more is "screened", you are substantially screened.

* according to the US Government Department of pulling numbers out of thin air. You can also find 78% from the US Department of making stuff up.
MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
Brian,

Did you make substantially 78% or is it written somewhere? Inquiring minds want to know. LOL
BrianB (California)
Posts: 2,820
Posted:
Mary, did you not notice my as
terisk?

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
Brian,

Yes I did; not not until after I posted my response. :-( BTW, I think I may have worked for one of those gov. agencies many years ago! LOL
DonN (Michigan)
Posts: 357
Posted:
I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

Rather than focus on splitting hairs on "substantially limits", consider the opposites such as "easy to see" or "obviously in view". If there is nothing stored that is "easy to see" or "obviously in view", wouldn't that be enough?

Normally, courts construe all ambiguities in restrictive covenants against the drafter and/or the party seeking enforcement. When the language isn't clear, courts will try to determine the intent of the drafter. The intent is clear, keep that ugly thing out of sight. Court will also seek a standard so that uniformity can be obtained.

Accordingly, when the ugly thing is "easy to see" or "obviously in view", it is in violation of "...substantially limits the view thereof...".

The association can write rules only if the restrictive covenants so authorize, and then only within the scope authorized.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

  • ✓ Ask follow-up questions
  • ✓ Share your experience
  • ✓ Get expert advice
  • ✓ Access 350,000 discussions
Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here

Terms of Use and Privacy Statement