Uniform Gardens Proposal May Grow Into Trouble

Question: I’m on my condominium board. We’re in Valencia and have 48 units, each with a separate garden area.

Our board president has embarked on a pet project where she wants to landscape all the garden areas in front of each unit with a “uniform appearance.” She wants to install 48 sets of water lilies and agapanthus where none existed before.

These are not a low-cost, maintenance-free item, and they will attract other problems such as mosquitoes.

I am concerned about two things.

First is the need for some owners to express themselves by having a garden. Some owners are justifiably proud of all the trouble and expense they have put into having beautiful gardens in front of their unit.

This has led to fewer complaints by homeowners because they feel that they are a part of the association. But there are still a few owners who don’t care what their garden fronts look like.

Second, there is a substantial additional expense to implement the ambitious lily project that may include an assessment and higher monthly fees to maintain them once installed. These plants must be fertilized and watered on a regular basis with the castoffs being removed immediately or they will die quickly.

The association might have to hire a specialized type of gardener to see to the needs of this new maintenance regime.

I don’t think the board should have the right to tear out someone’s garden after they have put in the hard work and money to make it look attractive.

I am afraid that if we take these gardens away from the owners, they will direct their free time to making life miserable for the board and the association.

We are unsure if the individual gardens are regarded as “exclusive use common interest” where the owners should have complete responsibility, or if they are in the absolute control of the association?

What common sense advice can you give us?

Answer: Review your Covenants Conditions & Restrictions to determine whether the areas gardened by homeowners are part of the common area or are designated as “exclusive use.”

If they are exclusive use areas, the individual owners can basically control the planting in those plots, while if it is part of the common area, the homeowner association is obligated to maintain the area and can exercise control over the space.

First, put your concerns in writing in advance of the next board meeting. Second, demand that the board present a budget for the project, both as to its creation and its ongoing maintenance to determine whether or not the monthly dues will be increased to accommodate this project. Third, request that the project along with the budget be presented to all the homeowners for their input. Since this new project may require an additional special assessment--either to install, maintain or both--approval of the homeowners may also be required.

Your garden-variety board needs to recognize that these homeowners have taken great pride in the appearance of their homes as seen through the efforts in the garden areas. They have invested time and expense to enhance the atmosphere of the entire complex by their attention to the appearance of their individual areas while at the same time adding to an otherwise sterile and “uniform” environment.

As you have learned, the byproduct is that homeowners who are “engaged” in their environment are least likely to complain. Isolating these homeowners is the quickest road to dissension within your complex. Ask if any of those already gardening may be interested in assisting those who can’t garden or arrange for those un-gardened fronts to be tended by the association’s gardeners.

Even though all the board members may be in agreement, changes to a common interest development made at the insistence or manipulation of one board member without a consensus of all homeowners can be an indication of ulterior motives. It can raise questions of whether a board member may be ready to sell the unit and is looking for an opportunity to enhance the sale by increasing its “curb appeal.”

Change for change’s sake--especially when it requires an outlay of homeowner funds (which is where the association gets its money)--not only demands full analysis of all the ramifications before any change is made but may also require a vote of the owners. Nothing in the Davis-Stirling Act prevents you from demanding that such an analysis be made or requiring approval by a majority of the homeowners.

*

Stephen Glassman is a writer and an attorney in private practice specializing in corporate and business law. Donie Vanitzian, J.D., is a writer and arbitrator and manages commercial property. Both live in common interest developments and have served on various association boards. Please send questions to: Common Interest Living, P.O. Box 451278, Los Angeles, CA 90045 or e-mail your queries to cidcommonsense@aol.com.