3120 condominium assn

I live in White Plains, New York, where numerous, massive "luxury rental" high rises are under development. See The Journal News, Jan. 25, 2023, "How thousands of new rental units are changing the face of White Plains." I am advocating for inclusion of the secondary effects of these projects on small businesses and long-term residents in environmental review. However, I would like to take an honest and open-minded look at what the effects of constructing such "luxury rental" high rises actually are. Do such projects tend to increase rents by "upscaling" the community? Do they bring a dynamism to the area that brings evictions with it? Do they decrease rents through the addition of new housing stock? Do they change the mix of retail businesses in a neighborhood? And other such effects . . . .
White Plains is a city greatly affected by its close proximity and mass transit connections to New York City. It has generally high demand for housing and high costs.
The 1986 New York Court of Appeals decision Chinese Staff & Workers Assn. v City of New York found that residents of Manhattan's Chinatown neighborhood were entitled to environmental review of secondary effects of construction "of Henry Street Tower, a high-rise luxury condominium." The project did not displace any residents or businesses from its footprint (it was built on a vacant lot), but the Court credited residents' fears that its secondary effects would push out neighborhood small businesses and long-term residents.

Background: I am on a planning board for a town of around 10,000 people, with around 4,000 housing units (about 90 to 95% single family houses), in Massachusetts.
 
The Planning Board is conducting permit hearings on an atypical (for us) Condominum development. We understand developers prefer to have wide Association powers and control to sell units, but this can cause trouble later on when owner busybodies capture the Condo Board, and use the broad authority of the developer-drafted Association in strange ways, interfering with use and enjoyment of the owner property. We desire to curb the Association powers in thoughtful ways.
 
The development will be a single parcel of land, with about 150 detached, stand-alone units (perhaps with several Duplex/Tripex structures, to be determined by developer in discussion with the Planning Board). - Each house will be on Condominium land, and have an exclusive use area of a few thousand square feet (front and back yard; side yards will be quite small) that is assigned to each house. - Two car garages. Subpanel in garage for potential 220 volt charging of Electric Vehicles. - Full basement, unfinished. - Condo water well and septic system; there is no town water or sewer. - There will be a common meeting hall, with parking and a pool and modest recreational activity, like pickleball. - Streets will be two lane private ways maintained by the Association. Additional Guest parking will be scattered around the development. - Above 35% of the lot will be dedicated to open space. Perhaps as much as 50%.
 

• Units are variable in size:
• More affordable 1600 sq ft., to size as large as 2,500 to 3,000 sq ft., excluding basement areas.
• 15% of the housing units are restricted purpetually to those with 80% or less of the Boston Median income at the time of purchase, and restricted in later sales price.
• In general, this is a town effort to create housing that at least partially is not huge houses, and intended in part for empty nest older housing, but not actually restricted to particular age of residents.  

The Planning Board, for this special permit has authority to specify or limit the power of the Condominium via Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of the master deed, as well as in the operations via the bylaws and policies of the Condomium Association, as may be specified in the decision/permit of the Planning Board.
There are no town bylaws regulating condominium governance, and so far, modest Planning Board regulations for condominium governance. Via the special permit decision, the Planning Board can regulate through the special permit conditions on the development.
 

• Since the housing units (so far proposed) are stand-alone, owners will be responsible for the building envelope.

The Planning board intends to not allow the condo association to have authority to regulate particular areas to:

• prevent units from putting up clotheslines to dry clothes.
• prevent units from parking outside their garage on their exclusive use area / driveway.
• regulate signage more restrictively than the town bylaws does (two-sq.-ft signs allowed without regard to content)
• lighting and decorations may not be more restrictive than town bylaws (no light trespass onto abutter land (exclusive use land), bright lights must be full cutoff, downward facing
• solar electric panels on roofs shall not be regulated by HOA condo assn.
• During the buildout, the Condominium Association will be required to allow new owners to be non-voting members of the condo board, so that the owners know what the developer is doing inside the Association, during the builder period of exclusive control, with potential consideration that the builder give up control, with voting allowed when 75% of the units are sold, and builder losing majority board status at 90%, before the last final units are sold.
  
• The Condo Association will have a transition financial audit, at the point of owner full control, and will have mandated cash bank balances required, as there will be owners residing for a couple of years by the time of builder exit. Typical builder moves intended to be prevented are to use the Association to pay for builder mistakes and landscaping.
  

Question
What other areas of governance should be put into the Planning Board permit, either preventing the Condominium Association Board captured by busybody control freaks, from being intrusive, or should be mandated to do, for good community purposes?

• Also looking for advice and guidance on rentals of units, and the consequences of certain percentages becoming rental properties, and the Planning Board may consider or mandate that the Association limit the number of rentals, or not allow short term rentals, of the Air-B-N-B variety.

Potential additional Condo Association items for further discussion by the Planning Board, plus others you may suggest:

• Not allowed to regulate condo exterior unit color.
• Potential discussion about new deck regulation.
• Not allowed to exclude pets more restrictively than town bylaws.
• Shall allow owners to put up a fence surrounding rear-yard exclusive use zone, of perhaps 3000 or less sq ft. This may allow control for dogs. (this could interfere with Condo Assn. mowing.)
• May not regulate home office activity more strictly than town bylaws allow and permit.

Background: I am on a planning board for a town of around 10,000 people, and around 4,000 housing units (about 90 to 95% single family houses), in Massachusetts.
(I have edited this post to aid subsequent readers, responding in part to initial informational questions.)
The Planning Board is conducting permit hearings on an atypical (for us) Condominum development. Although as shorthand I refer to it as a Home Owners Association, it is actually legally a Condomium, and this matters. Condo law is robust in Massachusetts; HOA law is not.
 
The development will be a single parcel of land, with about 150 detached, stand-alone units (perhaps with several Duplex/Tripex structures, to be determined by developer in discussion with the Planning Board). Each house will be on Condominium/HOA land, and have an exclusive use area of a few thousand square feet (front and back, and side yard) that is assigned to each house. Two car garages. Full basement, unfinished. HOA/Condo water well and septic system; there is no town water or sewer.
 
Units are variable in size: More affordable 1600 sq ft., to size as large as 2,500 to 3,000 sq ft., excluding basement areas. 15% of the housing units are restricted purpetually to those with 80% or less of the Boston Median income at the time of purchase. In general, this is a town effort to create housing that at least partially not huge housing, and intended in part for empty nest older housing, but not actually restricted for age of residents.
 
The Planning Board, for this special permit has authority to specify or limit the power of the Condominium/HOA, via restrictions or conditions specified in the decision of the Planning Board.
There are no town bylaws regulating condominium governance, and so far, modest Planning Board Regulations for condominium governance. But, via the special permit decision, the Planning Board can regulate via permit conditions on the development for the deed master Covenant and Conditions, and also via allowed Condo Association bylaws and policies.
 

• Since the housing units (so far proposed) are stand-alone, owners will be responsible for the building envelope.

The Planning board intends to not allow the condo association to have authority to regulate so as to:

• prevent units from putting up clotheslines to dry clothes.
• prevent units from parking outside their garage on their exclusive use area / driveway.
• regulate signage more restrictively than the town bylaws does (two-sq.-ft signs allowed without regard to content)
• lighting and decorations may not be more restrictive than town bylaws (no light trespass onto abutter land (exclusive use land), bright lights must be full cutoff, downward facing
• solar electric panels on roofs shall not be regulated by HOA condo assn.
• During the buildout, the HOA will be required to allow new owners to be non-voting members of the HOA condo board, so that they know what the developer is doing inside the HOA, during the builder period of exclusive control, with potential consideration that the builder give up control, with voting allowed when 75% of the units are sold, and builder losing majority board status at 90%, before the last final units are sold.

Edit to add:

• The HOA will have a transition audit, at the point of owner full control, and will have mandated bank balances required, as there will be owners residing for a couple of years by the time of builder exit. Typical builder moves are to use the HOAto pay for builder mistakes and landscaping, and we aim to prevent that.

Question
What other areas of governance should be put into the permit, either preventing the Condominium/HOA Board captured by busybody control freaks, from being intrusive, or should be mandated to do, for community purposes?
Potential additional HOA/CONDO Association items, plus others you may suggest:

• HOA Not allowed to regulate condo exterior unit color.
• HOA Not allowed to exclude pets more restrictively than town bylaws.
• HOA Shall allow owners to put up a fence surrounding rear-yard exclusive use zone, of perhaps 3000 or less sq ft. This may allow control for dogs. (this could interfere with HOA condo assn. mowing.)
• May not regulate home office activity more strictly than town bylaws allow and permit.

Environmental Review of Development // I live in White Plains, New York, where numerous, massive "luxury rental" high rises are under development. See The Journal News, Jan. 25, 2023, "How thousands of new rental units are changing the face of White Plains." I am advocating for inclusion of the secondary effects of these projects on small businesses and long-term residents in environmental review. However, I would like to take an honest and open-minded look at what the effects of constructing such "luxury rental" high rises actually are. Do such projects tend to increase rents by "upscaling" the community? Do they bring a dynamism to the area that brings evictions with it? Do they decrease rents through the addition of new housing stock? Do they change the mix of retail businesses in a neighborhood? And other such effects . . . .
White Plains is a city greatly affected by its close proximity and mass transit connections to New York City. It has generally high demand for housing and high costs.
The 1986 New York Court of Appeals decision Chinese Staff & Workers Assn. v City of New York found that residents of Manhattan's Chinatown neighborhood were entitled to environmental review of secondary effects of construction "of Henry Street Tower, a high-rise luxury condominium." The project did not displace any residents or businesses from its footprint (it was built on a vacant lot), but the Court credited residents' fears that its secondary effects would push out neighborhood small businesses and long-term residents.

Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena
Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena
Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena
Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena
Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena
Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena Hatena