Handicapped Parking Space Perplexes Board
QUESTION: Ten years ago, when our 44-unit condominium complex was new, the board of directors designated a handicapped parking space for a handicapped owner. Recently, the manager advised the association that the handicapped space did not comply with city code. Then the association’s attorney stated that the board did not have the authority to grant the space to the handicapped owner. Each owner has a two-car garage and the attorney said that all other spaces should be open to everyone’s use.
The attorney cited an Ohio case that states that the board would be breaking the law if they designated a handicapped parking space for one owner. We’ve been told that we need to have 100% agreement of all the owners to allow the owner to use the handicapped space. We don’t believe we would ever achieve the approval of every owner.
The board wants to abide by the law but because this handicapped space has been there for 10 years, the board is reluctant to take it away. The disabled person uses a wheel chair and the space in the garage is not sufficient to allow easy access of the wheelchair.
How should we settle this matter?
ANSWER: I am aware of the Ohio case, U.S. vs. Fairway Villas Condominium Assn. In that case, the association refused to grant a handicapped space to a woman who had chronic fatigue syndrome and several herniated discs in her back. The article states that the court sided with the association, basing the decision on specific clauses in the Ohio Condominium Act.
“These clauses provided that the common areas were owned by all unit owners as tenants in common. Because of that, each unit owner was entitled to use the common areas without interference from another owner. The court reasoned that only the owners, by unanimous vote, could convert a common area to a limited common area (a common area available for the use of less than all owners),” attorney Seth Emmer wrote in an article in Common Ground magazine.
It is difficult to predict what a California court would do in your case, but you should inform your attorney that this specific owner has been using the handicapped space for 10 years. It seems that a precedent may have been established.
Certainly the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 provides that associations must allow handicapped residents to modify common areas at their own expense when changes are needed for the resident’s use and access to the property. Emmer’s article states that “discrimination against a handicapped person includes a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to use and enjoy a dwelling.”
As a moral issue, I believe that a wheelchair-bound person deserves some concession. The association should be very cautious about changing a 10-year-old decision. Perhaps before making their decision the board members should use a wheelchair and navigate the owner’s route from his or her garage into the building. Sometimes, decisions become very easy when we simply put ourselves in the other person’s shoes (or wheelchair).
Get a Pro’s Advice Before Doing Roof Job
Q: The roof of our complex is about 9 years old. The president of our board of directors says that the roof is rotten and cannot be repaired. It looks fine to me. How do we determine what needs to be done?
A: A major project like reroofing the entire building is not the president’s decision, even if the president is a roofing expert. Board members need to be involved with the decision-making. I have seen many associations throw away their money on “band-aid” roof repairs. On the other hand, sometimes roofs can be repaired without doing an entirely new roof.
I recommend getting proposals from independent roofing consultants who can tell you the type of roof repair that will be compatible with the existing roof. The consultant will tell you whether the existing roof must be removed if replacing the roof is necessary. In my opinion, it is well worth the consulting fee to have a professional evaluation and obtain written specifications from an expert who will not be bidding on the contract. The consultant can often supervise the work and assist in getting proper warranties from the contractor.
Relying on professional consultants is an effective way of dealing with major projects. It also reduces the board members’ liability.
More Than One Way to Deal With Termites
Q: The board president of our townhouse complex wants to tent the entire building for termite treatment at a cost of about $15,000. She is in the real estate business and is recommending a specific contractor that she knows.
She says that attorneys have told her that “a court will confirm and support the board’s decision to tent the building and will order an owner or tenant to vacate the unit.” I do not believe that the building needs to be tented. What can I do?
A: You can urge the board to research the governing documents of the association and Civil Code Section 1364 to determine who is responsible for termite treatment. If your association is a planned-unit development, you may find that each owner is responsible for his or her own unit. An attorney who is experienced in the representation of community associations can give you a legal opinion at very little cost because it will require a minimal amount of time.
Second, if the board finds that the association is responsible, members should obtain competitive bids and consider the recommendations of more than one company. This should be a board decision, voted after completion of legal research and review of recommendations from professionals.
*
Hickenbottom is a past president of the Greater Los Angeles chapter of the Community Associations Institute (CAI), a national nonprofit research and educational organization. She welcomes readers’ questions, but cannot answer them individually. Readers with questions or comments can write to her in care of “Condo Q&A;,” Box 5068, Thousand Oaks, CA 91360.