But what? is "what they say"? What is what they mean?. If "building height" itself is not defined in the doctuments, or is defined ambigously**, well, ambiguous documents are interpreted against the interest of the party to write the document. In this case, that's not the OP.
**A real likiehood I think. Things that seem clear at first are often not clear.,. The OP should post all the text from any document that deals with building height. We might find an ambiguity, and a property lawyer might find one we can't find.
Sorry, Ed, Trader. . I read that as maximum. Although I'd like to see the exact wording for that requirement too. Perhaps it says "Pitched roofs must be at least 4 inches in 12"or something else that doesn't require pitched roofs.
Truly flat roof design is no longer legal in commercial work. Code requires a minimum of 1/4 per foot. In fact, re-roofs require positive drainage often accomplished with a tapered roof system on top of the existing flat roof.
As to the OP trying to add a second floor, someone else already pointed out that there is no way. The existing top plate will be over 8', 2nd floor joists and decking will be close to 12", new roof joists (even on a minimum slope flat roof) will be another 12" or more. These figures will result in less than 7' head clearance in the second floor. The split level solution suggested could be quite viable. It does sound like the HOA didn't want to ruin anybody's view of the mountains - a common issue in mountainous communities.
Bullshit -- the OP has made it clear -- no part of any structure on lands covered by the HOA documents may extend above 210 feet above sea level... That is in no way ambiguous...
The OP would need to consult a condominium lawyer who is familiar with state laws in the OP's state regarding how condominium disputes are handled... The HOA's authority on allowing for any external modifications to structures within its area of control is absolute...
That means even if some proposed project complies with all local building codes, the board of directors in charge of the HOA can reject it based on several other reasons built into the document, and such reasons need not be disclosed as any activity which requires HOA approval can simply not receive it... Like changing paint color, requesting to plant some landscaping inside an area of control, widening a driveway, etc -- all things that typically require receiving permission to do such work in areas governed by HOAs...
Reply to a request can simply be: "Requested Permission DENIED"
That is what you have to live with and the outcomes of votes by an HOA board can appear entirely random, some requests being approved and some being denied depending on who is in office on the board of directors...
There are mountains?. I don't want to interfere with the view either. He should build the whole thing underground. Good in case of a war or an anti-terrorist attack on his house.
BTW, I meant to say to you, OP, that in some states, there is different law for homeowners association and for condominiums, and in some states the law is sparse, in which case it's probably regular coroporation law that fills in what's missing.
This is a crummy argument. The OP is not quoting. He's interpreting. He believes it means what he's been told it means. It might, but it might not. He needs a fresh person to look at it., and one who's not already opposed to his plans.
If anyone could read a contract and the contract would mean what anyone thinks it means, we wouldn't need contract lawyers.
So we agree!
Probably nothing in the law is absolute. Especially if the original documents were poorly drawn.
"Several other reasons"? I doubt there is more than one reason that could apply here.
Of coruse complying with building codes won't make acceptable a project that doesn't conform to enforceable HOA rules. The questions remain, what are the rules and are they enforceable?. As to the second half, they probably are, but no lawyer would venture an opinion based on what little has been offered here, any more than a doctor would venture an opinion on someone's medical problem based on a short post, wiritten by the patient.
Huh? Of course the Board's reason has to be disclosed. In practice, they might refuse to talk, but in court they would have to, or they'd lose. Why wouldn't they want to disclose the reason if it's a valid one?
Of course in practice that can be the answer, but in court they will have to be explicit. Not only that, a board that acted so imperiously as to give no reason might well find it out on its keester after the members come up for another vote, and the new board might rule diferently just because the old board was so annoying.
Some people ask for the moon when they're not entitled to anything, and some people who are entrtled to what they ask for just roll over and hold their eyes closed when they don't get it. You can find plenty of examples of both, plus plenty of examples of the other two combinations, including people who are refused their rights and who get them in court or at the ballot box later.
AFAIK, the OP never posted exactly what the wording was. What he posted was:
" The HOA restructs construction of 210 ft. above sea level. "
However, I doubt that he needs a HOA expert lawyer to interpret whatever the HOA document actually says.
He can go waste time on lawyers, get opinions, etc. But at the end of the day, if in plain english it says you can't have a building extend above 210 ft sea level, then it's over. Unless you think starting a legal battle with a HOA that doesn't care how much it costs to litigate the case is a good idea.
I'd also look around and see if any other homes have a second story. If they don't, pretty good indication that his isn't going anywhere.
Granted there are some contracts and parts of many contracts that need a lawyer to get through the legal crap. But if the HOA documents say "no structure allowed to extend above 210ft sea level", I'd say that is one that doesn't need legal interpretation. If a town zoning ordinance says a house needs a 20 ft side yard clearance, would you need a legal opinion on what that means before you figure out if you meet it for a building permit?
Nothing is absolute as long as you're willing to spend more than the addition would cost in legal fees battling an HOA. Many HOA's live for this. And after spending all the legal fees, you could very easily lose.
How could you know that? We have no idea what the rest of the restrictions are.
I wasn't saying the OP had a real chance of winning in court, or even that there was any issue to litigate. Mayyybe there is but I certainly don't know. I was just taking issue writh the previous poster who made it sound like HOAs are always right and/or always win.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.