CC&R’s and Architectural Jury

[XBoxBoy]

I’d love to get some opinions on this. I live in a neighborhood that has CC&R’s that provide for there to be an Architectural Jury. Several months ago one of the homeowners submitted plans to the jury, but the plans were rejected. Apparently some back and forth between the homeowners and the jury took place, but no agreement was reached. Subsequently the city approved the permits for the remodel despite being notified by the jury that the jury had not approved the plans. Now the homeowners have begun the demolition and are moving forward with the remodel without the Architectural Jury’s permission.

At this point, people in the neighborhood are wondering if there’s anything that can be done, and if so what.

I’d appreciate hearing from anyone who’s had similar experiences or who has good knowledge about this sort of situation.

Thanks,

XBoxBoy

[spdrun]

Is this a historical district or just a prissy McHOA development?

[svelte]

[quote=XBoxBoy]

At this point, people in the neighborhood are wondering if there’s anything that can be done, and if so what.

I’d appreciate hearing from anyone who’s had similar experiences or who has good knowledge about this sort of situation.

Thanks,

XBoxBoy[/quote]

It depends entirely upon what is written in your governing documents and whether the current HOA board has the desire to enforce them.

Most governing docs outline penalties for those who flaunt the rules and process, with graduated fines that increase with time.

What varies widely is how far an HOA can go to ultimately enforce the rules. Some HOAs can actually foreclose on the homeowner when they get high enough in arrears on what they owe. Some HOAs are banned from foreclosing if all that is overdue is fines, but they can still lein the home and wreak havoc if the owner ever tries to sell. Some HOAs have no teeth at all.

Check your docs, then let the board know you as a neighbor want those docs enforced.

(Also note that enforcement must be done in a uniform manner – if they haven’t been enforcing the docs in the past, they could open themselves up for a lawsuit if they choose to do so only in this one case)

[XBoxBoy]

This is a neighborhood in La Jolla. There is no HOA, only a set of CC&R’s that authorize the election of an Architectural Jury. (The main purpose of which is to keep people from building and blocking other people’s views) It is an older neighborhood, 1950s with mostly ramblers.

edit: I should mention that this is the first time anyone has flagrantly ignored the Architectural Jury. Many people have had to redo their plans and curb their expansion in order to get approval for their remodels. Now we’ve hit a point where basically the homeowner is say, “heck with you, sue me if you want.”

[UCGal]

If it’s a view blockage issue I would think the coastal commission review would prevent that from happening.

[svelte]

We actually considered buying in a development like this – CC&Rs but no HOA. It even had an arch review board.

So before we purchased, I contacted the board and asked a hypothetical question: what would happen if someone built without arch review board permission?

The question was met with a deafening silence.

I took that to mean that, since the review board is staffed with volunteers and there are ZERO funds since there is not an HOA with monthly dues, there is nothing they could do.

An individual homeowner could likely sue the violator, but that homeowner would have to bear all costs associated with the lawsuit.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=svelte]We actually considered buying in a development like this – CC&Rs but no HOA. It even had an arch review board.

So before we purchased, I contacted the board and asked a hypothetical question: what would happen if someone built without arch review board permission?

The question was met with a deafening silence.

I took that to mean that, since the review board is staffed with volunteers and there are ZERO funds since there is not an HOA with monthly dues, there is nothing they could do.

An individual homeowner could likely sue the violator, but that homeowner would have to bear all costs associated with the lawsuit.[/quote]

While I threw out the question without much detail, curious to see what people would say, I think this is the situation. The only provision in the CC&R that allows the Architectural Jury to do anything is to record a document with the City Recorder stating that the owners are in violation of the CC&R by building without Jury approval. From what I can make of the wording of this section, (Good grief why do lawyers have to write in this style!) the only thing accomplished by this recorded document is it gives someone some ammo if they want to sue the offending homeowner.

In the end I think the case basically comes down to the homeowner saying, “hey I want to do this, I’ve got money, and if you want to litigate I’ll bury you in costs.” Since it’s unlikely the community will pony up the cash to fight this, my hunch is it’s a done deal.

The interesting thing is that for 50 some years no one has ever done this. They moved in knowing the rules and they worked with the Architectural Jury to find a solution. Now, this is all going to get thrown out the window. While I don’t really care too much about these things, it does seem to me as well… how do I put this…. uncivilized? What happened to old fashioned decorum? Does one really just tell your neighbors, “oh piss off.” I guess so.

XBoxBoy

[no_such_reality]

[quote=XBoxBoy]
The interesting thing is that for 50 some years no one has ever done this. They moved in knowing the rules and they worked with the Architectural Jury to find a solution. Now, this is all going to get thrown out the window. While I don’t really care too much about these things, it does seem to me as well… how do I put this…. uncivilized? What happened to old fashioned decorum? Does one really just tell your neighbors, “oh piss off.” I guess so.
[/quote]

It depends. If the owner didn’t even present to the jury I’d say yes. Volunteer review boards are notorious for being little zealots and ninnies.

If the rejection is because he’s blocking views, I’d agree.

If the rejection is because someone thinks he’s building “too big” I’d say no.

If the rejection is because he isn’t incorporating enough ‘green’ technology I’d say no.

If the rejection was because the house IS too big and he’s encroaching on the sunlight space, air flow space and psychological distance of the neighbors, I’d say yes. But this get’s very subjective.

[SK in CV]

[quote=XBoxBoy]
While I threw out the question without much detail, curious to see what people would say, I think this is the situation. The only provision in the CC&R that allows the Architectural Jury to do anything is to record a document with the City Recorder stating that the owners are in violation of the CC&R by building without Jury approval. From what I can make of the wording of this section, (Good grief why do lawyers have to write in this style!) the only thing accomplished by this recorded document is it gives someone some ammo if they want to sue the offending homeowner.

In the end I think the case basically comes down to the homeowner saying, “hey I want to do this, I’ve got money, and if you want to litigate I’ll bury you in costs.” Since it’s unlikely the community will pony up the cash to fight this, my hunch is it’s a done deal.

The interesting thing is that for 50 some years no one has ever done this. They moved in knowing the rules and they worked with the Architectural Jury to find a solution. Now, this is all going to get thrown out the window. While I don’t really care too much about these things, it does seem to me as well… how do I put this…. uncivilized? What happened to old fashioned decorum? Does one really just tell your neighbors, “oh piss off.” I guess so.

XBoxBoy[/quote]

I lived in a neighborhood in Poway that had similar CC&R’s. I think it was about 25 years old when I moved in, just as they were expiring. Dues were like $25 a year, mostly spent on an annual block party, and a “monthly newsletter” that was sent out once or twice a year. I never paid the dues and never went to the block party, so they were pretty much optional.

Just after I moved in, the CC&R’s were renewed. I don’t remember the process, maybe there was a vote. I asked neighbors about it, and there were some pretty stringent rules about getting things approved through the architectural committee, but after about the first 10 years, nobody paid any attention to it and it dissolved.

My point is, if this community is old, it’s possible that the CC&R’s have expired anyway. And just like in some condo HOA’s, it could be some old farts that just want to exercise power because they can. If it was me, and I wasn’t making any changes that any reasonable person could object to, i’d say screw em. The uncivilized ones are those making the demands.

[El Jefe]

[quote=XBoxBoy]In the end I think the case basically comes down to the homeowner saying, “hey I want to do this, I’ve got money, and if you want to litigate I’ll bury you in costs.” Since it’s unlikely the community will pony up the cash to fight this, my hunch is it’s a done deal.[/quote]

Unfortunately, this is pretty much the truth. Even with iron clad covenants and iron fisted HOA’s, design review boards can only really enforce the form of the form/function ballance. They can stipulate height restrictions, color pallettes, general architectural styles, coverage ratios, etc…

They can’t stipulate the function side of the equation being what you ultimately design to fit your needs and where you put it on your property as long as it does not violate any of the form requirements.

In the absence of a specific deed restriction on a particular property, in california there are no view guarantees for properties around you. That does not mean in places like La Jolla or Del Mar that you won’t spend a LOT of money in court to be proven right.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=SK in CV]

My point is, if this community is old, it’s possible that the CC&R’s have expired anyway. And just like in some condo HOA’s, it could be some old farts that just want to exercise power because they can. If it was me, and I wasn’t making any changes that any reasonable person could object to, i’d say screw em. The uncivilized ones are those making the demands.[/quote]

Just to clarify. CC&R’s are fully in effect, no question there. The current Architectural Jury was voted in about a year and a half ago. (Half of all the homes plus 1, in the neighborhood had to cast a vote in favor of each person who was seated.) This is clearly not a case of just a couple of old farts wanting to exercise power.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=no_such_reality]

It depends. If the owner didn’t even present to the jury I’d say yes. [/quote]

Apparently the owners submitted plans but they were not approved. I was not involved in discussions but I understand they were asked to modify the plans and basically refused. They are currently in the process of the remodel.

[quote=no_such_reality]
If the rejection is because he’s blocking views, I’d agree.
[/quote]

This is the issue. The remodel will encroach into the neighbors view. (Fortunately not mine though)

[quote=no_such_reality]
If the rejection is because someone thinks he’s building “too big” I’d say no.

If the rejection is because he isn’t incorporating enough ‘green’ technology I’d say no.

If the rejection was because the house IS too big and he’s encroaching on the sunlight space, air flow space and psychological distance of the neighbors, I’d say yes. But this get’s very subjective.[/quote]

No one is complaining about the size, or lack of green technology, or air flow.

[sdduuuude]

At quick glance, it seems to me that if the city issued them a building permit, then the city doesn’t seem to think that the CC&R’s are binding in any way.

If they were binding, wouldn’t the city require an approval document from the neighborhood group. If there is no HOA, funding or legally recognized authority, I don’t understand what the point is of even having the CC&Rs.

If the neighborhood wanted to sue, it seems they would have to include the city in the lawsuit, driving up the cost even more.

I’d say the remodellers called the Architectural Jury’s bluff and won.

Only thing left is to do what the Amish do – shun them.

[UCGal]

Since this is La Jolla – was the coastal commission involved? I was under the impression that coastal commission worked to mitigate view infractions.

I could be wrong. But I have vague memories of the La Jolla Shores Hotel (which blocked views of quite a few homes behind it) was what triggered coastal commission getting involved in view stuff.

[Author]

Posts