Potomac Yard (Alexandria) HOA — Issues?

[Anonymous]

Who’s Frank? TLDR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone on this thread knows the answer, how many lots/homes had been sold in PY at the time the Parking Assignment resolution was passed?

Did the declarant still hold majority votes in the HOA?

Not that it would be relevant if the parking area had already been designated as common area for the HOA. The declarant/developer cannot just take that away.

I think you meant to ask the number of ungaraged townhomes the developer sold prior to the implementation of the recent parking policy ?

No, I meant to ask what I asked. To boil it down, how many members did the HOA have in 2014? - how many were homeowners and how many votes did the declarant retain? Curious about who have voting control. Even if the declarant held the majority of votes, it still should not be able to reassign by HOA common area by resolution.

I am not sure, but the first residents moved in October 2011. I would venture to state that over 70% of residents closed on their homes or signed the HOA documents for what was planned for the Potomac Yard HOA at the time by then.

Check your assertion against Google Earth historical imagery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For what it's worth, I know of someone who bought a top-floor condo unit without exclusive use of the roof, and later bought it from the rest of the owners, though not in Virginia. And I know, from reading the news, that a Florida condo association can be dissolved by a vote of 75% of the total ownership.

My point being that a common area in a condo, and the very existence of the condo itself, aren't as immutable as is assumed in this thread. In the early days of PY the HOA board might have been able to get enough votes to meet the threshold for changing the usage of a common area.

I will let your inaccuracies stand, but please note that the HOA, with a 67% affirmative vote, can give away a common area to the city. However, the board cannot give away a common area for the exclusive use of certain HOA members under any circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For what it's worth, I know of someone who bought a top-floor condo unit without exclusive use of the roof, and later bought it from the rest of the owners, though not in Virginia. And I know, from reading the news, that a Florida condo association can be dissolved by a vote of 75% of the total ownership.

My point being that a common area in a condo, and the very existence of the condo itself, aren't as immutable as is assumed in this thread. In the early days of PY the HOA board might have been able to get enough votes to meet the threshold for changing the usage of a common area.

the HOA, with a 67% affirmative vote, can give away a common area to the city. However, the board cannot give away a common area for the exclusive use of certain HOA members under any circumstances.

Say a resident became disabled and needed a ramp to enter their townhouse, and a suitably sloped ramp had to block part of the sidewalk, which I assume is a common area. It wouldn't be allowed even if a supermajority was ok with it? But the board could give that piece of sidewalk to the city, which could in turn, after the proper procedures and votes, allow the resident to build the ramp?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For what it's worth, I know of someone who bought a top-floor condo unit without exclusive use of the roof, and later bought it from the rest of the owners, though not in Virginia. And I know, from reading the news, that a Florida condo association can be dissolved by a vote of 75% of the total ownership.

My point being that a common area in a condo, and the very existence of the condo itself, aren't as immutable as is assumed in this thread. In the early days of PY the HOA board might have been able to get enough votes to meet the threshold for changing the usage of a common area.

the HOA, with a 67% affirmative vote, can give away a common area to the city. However, the board cannot give away a common area for the exclusive use of certain HOA members under any circumstances.

Say a resident became disabled and needed a ramp to enter their townhouse, and a suitably sloped ramp had to block part of the sidewalk, which I assume is a common area. It wouldn't be allowed even if a supermajority was ok with it? But the board could give that piece of sidewalk to the city, which could in turn, after the proper procedures and votes, allow the resident to build the ramp?

Most HOA Declarations have a dissolution clause, it's usually 75% or more. HOA common areas can be dedicated to the city or local municipality if the HOA will no longer pay for the upkeep, such as if the HOA votes to dissolve or goes bankrupt. Remember HOAs have common area by municipal ordinance. That's why HOAs exist - to maintain their own stormwater management, private roads and other infrastructure because local governments are looking for ways to get more with less taxes. It's too bad some HOA boards have to take it a step further and decide to spend even more members' money on unauthorized expenses.

There are laws prohibiting blocking a sidewalk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For what it's worth, I know of someone who bought a top-floor condo unit without exclusive use of the roof, and later bought it from the rest of the owners, though not in Virginia. And I know, from reading the news, that a Florida condo association can be dissolved by a vote of 75% of the total ownership.

My point being that a common area in a condo, and the very existence of the condo itself, aren't as immutable as is assumed in this thread. In the early days of PY the HOA board might have been able to get enough votes to meet the threshold for changing the usage of a common area.

the HOA, with a 67% affirmative vote, can give away a common area to the city. However, the board cannot give away a common area for the exclusive use of certain HOA members under any circumstances.

Say a resident became disabled and needed a ramp to enter their townhouse, and a suitably sloped ramp had to block part of the sidewalk, which I assume is a common area. It wouldn't be allowed even if a supermajority was ok with it? But the board could give that piece of sidewalk to the city, which could in turn, after the proper procedures and votes, allow the resident to build the ramp?

No the HOA cannot for the mere fact all HOA members have a non-exclusive easement to all HOA common areas. This was decided in Batt VERSUS Manchester Oaks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For what it's worth, I know of someone who bought a top-floor condo unit without exclusive use of the roof, and later bought it from the rest of the owners, though not in Virginia. And I know, from reading the news, that a Florida condo association can be dissolved by a vote of 75% of the total ownership.

My point being that a common area in a condo, and the very existence of the condo itself, aren't as immutable as is assumed in this thread. In the early days of PY the HOA board might have been able to get enough votes to meet the threshold for changing the usage of a common area.

the HOA, with a 67% affirmative vote, can give away a common area to the city. However, the board cannot give away a common area for the exclusive use of certain HOA members under any circumstances.

Say a resident became disabled and needed a ramp to enter their townhouse, and a suitably sloped ramp had to block part of the sidewalk, which I assume is a common area. It wouldn't be allowed even if a supermajority was ok with it? But the board could give that piece of sidewalk to the city, which could in turn, after the proper procedures and votes, allow the resident to build the ramp?

The decision in Manchester Oaks Homeowners Ass'n v. Batt, decided by the Virginia Supreme Court in 2012, established that all HOA members have an equal, non-exclusive easement to use all HOA common areas, including parking spaces, unless the governing declaration expressly provides otherwise. In that case, the HOA attempted to amend its declaration to assign parking spaces in the common area exclusively to certain owners (those without garages), which was found to violate the declaration’s guarantee of equal access to common areas for all owners.

The court held that:

The declaration provided that “every Owner shall have a right and easement of enjoyment in and to the Common Area.”

Any assignment of common area (like parking) must benefit all owners equally, “because equality is inherent in the definition of common area” unless the declaration specifically states otherwise.

The HOA’s attempt to assign two common area parking spaces per ungaraged lot, but none to garaged lots, violated these principles.

Thus, under Manchester Oaks, unless specifically provided otherwise in the HOA's declaration, all members share a non-exclusive easement over all common areas and any allocation of common resources must be done fairly and equally.

[Anonymous]

I love the way that Frank always falls back on the line, “well, you know, there’s a tiny cabal that controls the HOA that doesn't like me because I speak truth to power."

He always casts himself as a victim who is sort of the Karen Silkwood of the HOA — Someone who’s so truthful that he's being hunted down by the conspiracy that runs the HOA. It’s all a bit much and paranoid. And his legal theories are garbage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For what it's worth, I know of someone who bought a top-floor condo unit without exclusive use of the roof, and later bought it from the rest of the owners, though not in Virginia. And I know, from reading the news, that a Florida condo association can be dissolved by a vote of 75% of the total ownership.

My point being that a common area in a condo, and the very existence of the condo itself, aren't as immutable as is assumed in this thread. In the early days of PY the HOA board might have been able to get enough votes to meet the threshold for changing the usage of a common area.

the HOA, with a 67% affirmative vote, can give away a common area to the city. However, the board cannot give away a common area for the exclusive use of certain HOA members under any circumstances.

Say a resident became disabled and needed a ramp to enter their townhouse, and a suitably sloped ramp had to block part of the sidewalk, which I assume is a common area. It wouldn't be allowed even if a supermajority was ok with it? But the board could give that piece of sidewalk to the city, which could in turn, after the proper procedures and votes, allow the resident to build the ramp?

The decision in Manchester Oaks Homeowners Ass'n v. Batt, decided by the Virginia Supreme Court in 2012, established that all HOA members have an equal, non-exclusive easement to use all HOA common areas, including parking spaces, unless the governing declaration expressly provides otherwise. In that case, the HOA attempted to amend its declaration to assign parking spaces in the common area exclusively to certain owners (those without garages), which was found to violate the declaration’s guarantee of equal access to common areas for all owners.

The court held that:

The declaration provided that “every Owner shall have a right and easement of enjoyment in and to the Common Area.”

Any assignment of common area (like parking) must benefit all owners equally, “because equality is inherent in the definition of common area” unless the declaration specifically states otherwise.

The HOA’s attempt to assign two common area parking spaces per ungaraged lot, but none to garaged lots, violated these principles.

Thus, under Manchester Oaks, unless specifically provided otherwise in the HOA's declaration, all members share a non-exclusive easement over all common areas and any allocation of common resources must be done fairly and equally.

Exactly right.

Re the poster about the condo roof: "I know of someone who bought a top-floor condo unit without exclusive use of the roof, and later bought it from the rest of the owners..." The key is that the top-floor owner bought it from the rest of the owners[b]. It is possible the members can all agree to give up common area, especially in a condo. Condos usually have common area ownership jointly, where all members own it. In HOAs, however, the HOA as a separate business entity is the owner of the common areas and the members hold an interest equal to the number of lots they own in the business entity.

[Anonymous]

How come you didn't confirm with the HOA if those parking spots were deeded ? It sounds like you screwed the pooch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love the way that Frank always falls back on the line, “well, you know, there’s a tiny cabal that controls the HOA that doesn't like me because I speak truth to power."

He always casts himself as a victim who is sort of the Karen Silkwood of the HOA — Someone who’s so truthful that he's being hunted down by the conspiracy that runs the HOA. It’s all a bit much and paranoid. And his legal theories are garbage.

I don't see anywhere in this thread where Frank is acting the victim. As far as HOA conspiracies, read this article and think again: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/2013/02/09/d46f9bec-6652-11e2-93e1-475791032daf_story.html

My favorite line - "board member Don Hughes compared some residents’ refusal to install window-pane dividers to the “cat and mouse game Saddam Hussein played with the USA,” e-mails show. Ultimately, Hussein “paid the price,” he said, concluding that the residents should comply."

This behavior from HOA board members is terrifyingly common. I'm guessing a lot of it is egged on by the HOA's lawyers who have nothing better to do than fan the flames of the smallest controversy to try to get litigation going. Drafting useless resolutions doesn't pay as well as lawsuits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For what it's worth, I know of someone who bought a top-floor condo unit without exclusive use of the roof, and later bought it from the rest of the owners, though not in Virginia. And I know, from reading the news, that a Florida condo association can be dissolved by a vote of 75% of the total ownership.

My point being that a common area in a condo, and the very existence of the condo itself, aren't as immutable as is assumed in this thread. In the early days of PY the HOA board might have been able to get enough votes to meet the threshold for changing the usage of a common area.

the HOA, with a 67% affirmative vote, can give away a common area to the city. However, the board cannot give away a common area for the exclusive use of certain HOA members under any circumstances.

Say a resident became disabled and needed a ramp to enter their townhouse, and a suitably sloped ramp had to block part of the sidewalk, which I assume is a common area. It wouldn't be allowed even if a supermajority was ok with it? But the board could give that piece of sidewalk to the city, which could in turn, after the proper procedures and votes, allow the resident to build the ramp?

The decision in Manchester Oaks Homeowners Ass'n v. Batt, decided by the Virginia Supreme Court in 2012, established that all HOA members have an equal, non-exclusive easement to use all HOA common areas, including parking spaces, unless the governing declaration expressly provides otherwise. In that case, the HOA attempted to amend its declaration to assign parking spaces in the common area exclusively to certain owners (those without garages), which was found to violate the declaration’s guarantee of equal access to common areas for all owners.

The court held that:

The declaration provided that “every Owner shall have a right and easement of enjoyment in and to the Common Area.”

Any assignment of common area (like parking) must benefit all owners equally, “because equality is inherent in the definition of common area” unless the declaration specifically states otherwise.

The HOA’s attempt to assign two common area parking spaces per ungaraged lot, but none to garaged lots, violated these principles.

Thus, under Manchester Oaks, unless specifically provided otherwise in the HOA's declaration, all members share a non-exclusive easement over all common areas and any allocation of common resources must be done fairly and equally.

Not a resident garaged or ungaraged but this seems painfully cut and dried to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love the way that Frank always falls back on the line, “well, you know, there’s a tiny cabal that controls the HOA that doesn't like me because I speak truth to power."

He always casts himself as a victim who is sort of the Karen Silkwood of the HOA — Someone who’s so truthful that he's being hunted down by the conspiracy that runs the HOA. It’s all a bit much and paranoid. And his legal theories are garbage.

Oh, so the board president, who happens to be one of the people given a free dedicated parking space, wouldn't have a vested interest in enduring Frank loses? Got it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the way that Frank always falls back on the line, “well, you know, there’s a tiny cabal that controls the HOA that doesn't like me because I speak truth to power."

He always casts himself as a victim who is sort of the Karen Silkwood of the HOA — Someone who’s so truthful that he's being hunted down by the conspiracy that runs the HOA. It’s all a bit much and paranoid. And his legal theories are garbage.

I don't see anywhere in this thread where Frank is acting the victim. As far as HOA conspiracies, read this article and think again: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/2013/02/09/d46f9bec-6652-11e2-93e1-475791032daf_story.html

My favorite line - "board member Don Hughes compared some residents’ refusal to install window-pane dividers to the “cat and mouse game Saddam Hussein played with the USA,” e-mails show. Ultimately, Hussein “paid the price,” he said, concluding that the residents should comply."

This behavior from HOA board members is terrifyingly common. I'm guessing a lot of it is egged on by the HOA's lawyers who have nothing better to do than fan the flames of the smallest controversy to try to get litigation going. Drafting useless resolutions doesn't pay as well as lawsuits.

I have worked in the property management space since 2004. I've been on the HOA/COA side as well as individually managed portfolios in the 350 unit range.

If you don't think board's are malicious, you are a fool. Plain and simple.

I was once an onsite manager for a 400 unit HOA in NOVA where the board president told me, several times, in no uncertain terms, that has entire goal of running for board President was so he could make the previous President's life "a living hell." I saw him lie through his teeth on multiple occasions where it benefitted him and his neighbors. I saw another board member start a complete lie about a man having an affair with a woman he hated. I could share anecdote after anecdote after anecdote that would not only have you avoid HOAs for the rest of your life, but would also completely convince you that Frank could very well be suffering persecution at the hands of the board .

[Anonymous]

The Potomac Yard HOA board president has 2 parking spots assigned to her at the expense of her neighbors across the street from her.