Architectural Controls Re: Driveway Widening

[v2kai]

Anyone with a new home ever run into architectural control headaches?

We, along with several neighbouring houses, are hoping to extend some concrete beside the driveway on our two storey double attached home and are getting some major flak from the area developer. Essentially it extends the walkway from the front porch down directly to the sidewalk where normally the front porch path wraps around the corner of the garage leaving a 'notch' of sod. We have a reverse pie lot so it leaves plenty of front yard and does not impact available street parking.

Bylaw and neighbors don't care and it's only the developer that's getting their panties in a bunch. As a possible compromise we proposed to cover the small area with a brick/stone outlined flower bed to preserve the presentation of the lot while the area is still under development. At this stage still waiting to hear from developer. Even with our solution to landscape for the immediate time being they are still opposing it. How deep into the ground does architectural control extend...

The concrete frame work and all prep labor completed and ready to pour hence why we're trying to find a mutually satisfactory solution. Am I up shit creek?

Debating compiling a petition with my neighbours to submit to them as there are quite a few of us that are seeking this addition.

[sputnik]

I am all for using the "search" function, but this really should have just been a new thread.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by v2kai
Debating compiling a petition with my neighbours to submit to them as there are quite a few of us that are seeking this addition.

That's about all you can do until they say yes. Developer got architectural control until they are done selling the last lot. Then it's the community association's problem.

[you&me]

Originally posted by baygirl
AFAIK Britannia's HOA is fairly strict, and will fight if they don't approve. I vaguely recall something about a home owner being forced to tear down and rebuild because they didn't like his garage... can't remember details though.

FWIW...

Britannia was developed by the City of Calgary and as such, is covered by the Britannia Caveat, which is registered on the property title. The Caveat specifies things such as setbacks, size and height of homes, while also preventing subdivision and limiting use to residential. The caveat does not specifically dictate architectural style, finishes, etc.

In the past, there have been non-conforming structures built (or conforming structures modified to be non-conforming), but the CA does not actively pursue the change existng structures to conform. However, a non-conforming structure (ie garage) will not be allowed to be replaced by anything new that is also non-conforming.

I'm not familiar with your example, but it sounds like a case of the garage being non-conforming, whether as a new build or replacing a previously non-conforming structure; it was not because the residents simply "didn't like it".

Edit - just noticed post dates. Oh well...

[v2kai]

Sorry for necro. Posting from mobile after searching. I just wonder if they have any ground to stand on (no pun intended) if the concrete addition is covered by landscaping...

[blairtruck]

i had a buddy and the HOA had a list of vehicles that could be parked in front of the house.
His F150 failed. but a Lincoln truck (f150 with different badges) was ok.
he swapped the badges.

[englishbob]

My first Calgry house in Douglasdale I got threatened by the homeowners association with legal action because I painted the trim on my garden shed a different colour than the house trim...I politely told them to sue me and said I'd change the colour the day of the court case.

[ricosuave]

Originally posted by blairtruck
i had a buddy and the HOA had a list of vehicles that could be parked in front of the house.
His F150 failed. but a Lincoln truck (f150 with different badges) was ok.
he swapped the badges.

Somehow, I don't believe this...

[blairtruck]

Originally posted by ricosuave


Somehow, I don't believe this...
i just googled
hoa list of vehicles truck
many articles came up. but maybe he lied. i dont know.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by ricosuave


Somehow, I don't believe this...

Good friend of mine (at the time) bought a house in Bow Meadows in Cochrane when it was first being developed. apparently, cars had to match the house (color, and I believe that part got nixed) and could only be XX years old and newer. He had a classic mustang that he could only park in his garage. If he so much as even washed it in the driveway, they came down on him.

[v2kai]

wow these stories are nightmares, car color matching house!? are friggin kidding me!?

blairtruck: I'm essentially trying to do what your buddy claims he did by swapping badges, essentially satisfy the requirements on the basis of a technicality. in my case it states no driveway additions, so i figure if I landscape over the added concrete section I think it's fair game to say it's not a driveway at that point. I cant park on it, cant walk on it and it doesnt impact street parking or any other of their concerns. It just so happens I chose to pay to put a concrete slab under my flower bed which completely covers the concrete and makes it unusable as a driveway at that point.

englishbob: problem is in my case its still the active area developer (not city) and in the architectural control document they state they reserve the right for any individuals or personnel under their management to essentially trespass and do as they please. I'm blown away by this statement. I'm not so much worried about a lawsuit (otherwise I'd do exactly what you did) more that they will come and rip up the concrete addition (which I plan to cover completely as a flower bed) and send a bill even if I landscape over it and it's not a driveway at that point.

which brings me back to the question of interpretation and jurisdiction of architectural controls. if I make the concrete addition a flower bed do they have any grounds to call foul for the fact that there is concrete buried underneath it?.... the more I think about it, the more i think not. It's simply not a driveway addition at that point.

any other thoughts, stories or opinions?

edit: now that I'm home on a computer I realize how off base the thread title is. whoops. thought it had 'architectural controls' in the heading on my cellphone... any chance a mod could split the thread off into it's own from my first post onwards?

[codetrap]

.

[v2kai]

Originally posted by codetrap
So basically, you bought the home in the community, were advised of the architectural controls in advance, but you're choosing to try and violate them? You realize this is the reason those controls are in place and are often strictly enforced right?

I'm also guessing that you didn't pull a permit to put down concrete either....right?

Edit: I'm not trying to be a dick here, I just wanted to get the gist of it. I talked to my wife who's a Real Estate Paralegal, and she's of the opinion that you might be SOL if it's registered on the title.

http://www.newhomelivingonline.com/calgary/articles/2193/architectural-guidelines

To respond fairly to your statement, yes (no dick connotation taken). Along with several other neighbours in our community it is fairly evident this is a widely desired feature many of us would like to add and begs the question who are the architectural controls for? The people who live in the community and bought paid for the houses or the developer who buggers off when they're done selling units?

I understand the intent which is largely to prevent storage of r.v., trailers and junker autos on a widened drive however all neighbours I have spoken to seek this addition for better walking area to the front door. The driveways aren't the most generous in width as is. And were not taking uni driveways here by a long shot. It's not an entirely cut and dry matter either. The developer has made an allowance for a few people already of a sort (entirely useless though I'd say). also for our community in particular there have been several sets of conflicting architectural controls issued as they really don't seem to have their shit together for any real rhyme or reason. Very frustrating. Especially when they come to bitch at the owners in the community for potentially ruining the appearance of the community when public managed space under their watch has overgrown patchy grass, dead trees and all in all looks like shit.

I didn't see the requirement for a permit for concrete on the Airdrie website, only deck building, garage etc so no permit pulled and concrete guy seconded that to me.

Also Thanks for the article

[codetrap]

.

[hampstor]

Assuming this is a HOA bylaw... why don't you and the people you know who want this, join/takeover the HOA board, get elected, then pass a motion that permits it?

Edit: Just noticed you said there is a developer. When the developer turns over operations to the HOA, do the above :D

[kenny]

The primary concern that is being addressed is the effect on parking if homeowners widen their driveways. It might not specifically affect your lot as you mentioned, but there are likely many lots where a widened driveway will remove available street parking. You mentioned it doesn't affect street parking, but it will reduce the available parking by a few feet (however wide your extension is). If your neighbor on the other side does the same thing, that is one less parking spot on the street.

Wait until the developer is done and passes on everything to the HOA/CA to manage. Since you said nobody cares, you should be able to do as you please.

[JustinMCS]

Soon enough, your area is going to be fashioned like this good stuff that's happening in the NE....

https://metronewsca.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/05_20_cal_unidriveways_robsonfletcher.jpg

[v2kai]

Originally posted by kenny
The primary concern that is being addressed is the effect on parking if homeowners widen their driveways. It might not specifically affect your lot as you mentioned, but there are likely many lots where a widened driveway will remove available street parking. You mentioned it doesn't affect street parking, but it will reduce the available parking by a few feet (however wide your extension is). If your neighbor on the other side does the same thing, that is one less parking spot on the street.

Wait until the developer is done and passes on everything to the HOA/CA to manage. Since you said nobody cares, you should be able to do as you please.

I see where your head is at but for our street that's not the case. I've assessed the front parking for the three of us that have started doing this and even if all adjacent neighbours did the same, the resulting street parking in between houses is still large enough for a large truck to park.additionally it will also takes cars off what street parking is available by getting them onto the driveway (more my neighbours case than mine).in my case we've got a double garage and drive and there's just no nice walk way to the front door if both cars are on the driveway. The other neighbours across the street have a dumb 1.5 car garage and driveway so they can't get both vehicles on but if the small addition was permitted they, along with many others who are on the same page, could get both vehicles on the driveway actually freeing up street parking.

So far none of their objections hold any reasonable, logical opposition other than reciting 'it's in the controls so no'. to me it feels similar to receiving a tint ticket for 35% tint

[redblack]

keep those shitty uni driveways in the NE

[JudasJimmy]

Driveways should be like that by default. It's a lot better to have a full concrete walk way to the door. As long as you still have grass on either side of your driveway, I don't see a problem with just doing it yourself after you take possession. That's what I did :-)

[speedog]

It needs to be noted that HOA's and CA's are totally different beasts. There is no HOA in my community but there is a CA and our CA has no say/control over what I do on my property - as long as any changes are in line with what the city allows, I'm good to go.

Now some CA's may have HOA-like powers but certainly not all - we changed our home's color from green to blue recently with no issues at all. That is not something many could do though due to HOA restrictions and many homeowners are quite fine with that. Myself, I like a community that has character and is not street after street chock full of cookie cutter homes

[gwill]

Is there an HOA in the community or are you following the architectural controls set forth by the developer? If there is an HOA I wouldn't do anything without proper approval due to all the head aches that come from that. If it's just controls set forth by the developer I'm surprised they are being so heavy handed. Lots of areas i know of have allowed larger drive ways. It's a typical upgrade many builders would do on request.

How strictly worded are the rules and restrictions to landscaping? Typically they are pretty vague. What sort of deposit will you be risking if you go ahead on your own?

[M.alex]

Originally posted by v2kai
wow these stories are nightmares, car color matching house!? are friggin kidding me!?


Notice how all these stories do not being with "I..." but rather "A told friend me..."