$500 Fine For Cars On Driveway Overnight
by Glen Richardson
Polo Club North is a gated community with winding streets, open spaces with a stream, small ponds and waterfalls flanked by evergreens and aspens at South University Boulevard and East Alameda Avenue. A clubhouse contains an indoor swimming pool and outdoor tennis courts. Polo ponies cantered over the terrain here at one time. Owners paid immense sums to have garages instead of stables in this converted polo field. But the subject of automobiles has the well-to-do neighbors at each others throats with threats of lawsuits in the air.
The HOA Rules Committee in Polo Club North has proposed an astonishing new rule: To ban resident cars from being left in driveways overnight. The Committee attached a fine of $500 per violation after the second night. The HOA board looked poised to adopt the rule at a board meeting on September 23. However, due to outrage from occupants, the package of proposed rules changes was returned to the Rules Committee for additional deliberation.
John Leather who is helping to lead the opposition told the Chronicle, “If the sample of public opinion delivered at the meeting meant anything to the Rules Committee members present, they will drop the enforceable structure.” In addition to potentially major penalties, owners also worry that the rule would impair the marketing of Polo Club North homes to families, especially those with three cars. According to the Denver Neighborhood News the average sales price of a home in Polo Club area is just under $1.9 million.
Property Rights
In the apparent opinion of the members of the Rules Committee automobiles in driveways are a visual blight to their community. Automobiles are not allowed to be parked overnight on the private roads of Polo Club North. The opposition believes that the Rules Committee’s view of aesthetics is excessive and overblown with one irate homeowner blasting the Board declaring, “We are a community, not a commune.” Moreover, opposition owners believe these pad plazas or driveways are their property; and use of a driveway is a property right.
Upshot: In their view taking away the use of the driveway is taking away property. That, they argue would violate the Colorado Constitution. The HOA Rules Committee has three Colorado lawyers among its seven members, however, and apparently finds no role or weight for Section 14 of the Colorado Constitution’s Bill of Rights as it applies to private condemnation of a property’s use and benefit.
Section 14 states: “Private property shall not be taken for private use unless by consent of the owner, except for private ways of necessity, and except for reservoirs, drains, flumes or ditches on or across the lands of others, for agricultural, mining, milling, domestic or sanitary purposes.” None of those constitutional exceptions apply to the driveway ban, opponents believe.
Whether or not the constitutional exceptions apply, concerned neighbors note that a resident with a two-car garage — most everyone — but with three cars would immediately be impacted, and they will have to run fast from the $500 nightly hit. Ditto anyone with a vehicle too big to fit in the garage, or who has two cars but has used one bay of the garage for a workshop or other use. As one homeowner told the Chronicle, “The driveway use restriction can no more be justified than telling me I cannot use my patio after 9 p.m. Where is the HOA’s authority for taking part of either limited common element?”
Matter Of Beauty
A few residents — and rumor has it that at least one Board member — believe the Committee should consider restricted driveway use as a matter of “beautifying” the community, similar to use of no-plastic-patio-furniture. These beautification proponents say all aspects of driveway parking personally offend them.
“Thus far the Rules Committee is also clinging to the notion an overnight resident parking ban is without legal significance, and entirely defensible because its members think the result will look better,” stated opposition leader Leather.
The opposition also blasted the HOA board for limiting the hearing on the entire matter to only 15 minutes. They claim it was a rush to judgment to prevent discussion and debate.
There is no date set by the HOA Board for a re-hearing on the matter.