You were serious about that?
KELSEYVILLE, Ca–The Clear Lake Riviera Community Association governs a common interest development of 2,810 lots overlooking Clear Lake in northern California. About half the lots are improved with homes.
The Riviera CC&Rs provide for an Architectural Control and Planning Committee to ensure that new construction is harmonious with the surroundings and adjacent homes. Sometime prior to 1995 the architectural committee issued building guidelines stating, “maximum roof height must not exceed seventeen (17) feet above street level or control point for that lot.”
In early 2005 Mr. and Mrs. Robert Cramer bought a lot in Riviera and drew plans for a home. They submitted the plans to the architectural committee and got approval with a note, “structure height not to exceed 17 feet from control point of lot.” Since it was a sloping lot, the control point (marked on the plans) was the center of the lot.
Mr. Cramer acted as his own general contractor. By mid-summer 2005 Cramer completed grading and installed forms for his foundation. But a neighbor complained, so members of the architectural committee met with Cramer and told him if he chose to build where the forms were placed the house would be too high. Later, Cramer did not recall a warning.
Cramer poured his foundation, and in ensuing months the committee sent two notices that the construction appeared to depart from approved plans. Again they warned the house could be too high.
But Cramer forged ahead and, yes, the completed house varied from the plans. It was bigger and exceeded the height restriction by nine feet. Worse, it interfered with lake views previously enjoyed by two neighbors.
When the Cramers asked for a variance to approve the house as built, the committee faced a hard decision. The variance was denied.
So it happened that the homeowners association sued the Cramers to bring the house into compliance.
At trial, Cramer denied being warned by the committee but admitted he never attempted to measure the height as work on his house progressed. He said he’d relied on his grading contractor to set the proper elevation, but the contractor disputed Cramer’s story.
Cramer argued he should not be forced to tear down the house, and an expert witness said it could cost $200,000 to save it. The expert said to preserve the structure Cramer would have to cut it in half, remove it from the foundation, re-grade the lot, and move it back on a new foundation.
Neighbors, on the other hand, we adamant saying the house interfered with enjoyment of their homes, and diminished their values.
The trial court ruled in favor of the association, and ordered the house be removed or made compliant. The Cramers appealed.
On appeal, Cramer disputed authority of the architectural committee saying the height restriction was not properly created. He also argued costs of fixing the violation would be excessive, and create hardship for his family. At most, he said, he should have to pay money damages to a few neighbors.
This was a tough case. Court-ordered injunctions and forced removal of improvements are rare.
But the court of appeals upheld the trial court decision, noting the association had enforced the height restriction consistently since at least 1995, and holding the forced removal was justified due to Cramer’s blatant disregard of the limit. Nine feet, the court agreed, is no “trivial” violation.
Moral: Homeowner associations are a force to be reckoned with. They represent the community you bought into, and their decisions can be legally enforced.
The case is reported as Clear Lake Riviera Community Association v. Robert Cramer, 182 Cal.App.4th 459, 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 815 (2010).