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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.