Comments for Arizona Legislative Session – Planned Community and Condominium Association Issues

Comment on HB2615 – Ham Radios, Passes House, Moves to Senate by Aaron Bennett

Aaron Bennett — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:40:47 +0000

i kind of don’t like to live in condominums because they don’t offer large spaces for garden.;:.

Comment on HB2615 – Ham Radios, Passes House, Moves to Senate by Samuel Johnson

Samuel Johnson — Mon, 24 May 2010 16:18:48 +0000

it is convenient to live in a Condominium if you are in a big city but i like big lawns and backyard gardens.`”.

Comment on HB2345 – Open House Signs, Etc., Hearing on Thursday March 25, 2010 at 9 am by Scott Carpenter

Scott Carpenter — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 00:51:53 +0000

The existing ARS 33-1808 has not been amended from the wording that existed on January 1, 2010. HB2345, if passed, would change the language. ARS 33-1808 is not a staute that authorizes sign regulation. The governing documents of the association must be the source of the regulation of signs. ARS 33-1808 says, in effect, “If your documents permit you to regulate signs, you cannot with respect to one sign, …etc.” The question is, “What do your documents say and does the statute, as it exists today or as it may exist if HB2345 is enacted, impact the language in your documents?”

Comment on HB2345 – Open House Signs, Etc., Hearing on Thursday March 25, 2010 at 9 am by Bob Goodale

Bob Goodale — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:06:15 +0000

33-1803 – RE signage. Has there been any changs in AZ Statute 33-1808 regarding the size of RE signs? A comment was made to me that some changes have been made that give Real Estate agents free reign with respect to their signage. Could this possibly be county dependent since the comment came from Prescott (Yavapai County)? If this is true it would then supercede any community CC&R’s – correct?

We have six communities that are under a Master set of CC&R’s as well as the individual community CC&R’s. There are a number of RE signs posted in all the communities that violate the 24″x18″ sign size and some disgruntled neighbors, in our community, are requesting that they be changed or removed. There are also a number of postings that have multiple “riders” which is also against 33-1803.

To me this is not worth pursuing and would probably cause more ill will in the general community but 33-1803 and the CC&R’s do stipulate what can and can not be posted. I’m in a quandry as a board member.

Also, there have been postings of “Auction” signs that has really angered this same group. These are separate signs from the RE signs and according to 33-1803 I assume these could be considered illegal also since it violates the size issue mentioned in 33-1804 (the combination of the RE sign and Auction sign). Are “Auctions” considered legal entities by the court and would therefore supercede 33-1803 and any CC&R’s?

Thanks,
Bob Goodale
Amante @ Verde Santa Fe
Cornville, AZ 86325

Comment on HB2753 – Manager Registration/Regulation by Scott Carpenter

Scott Carpenter — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:12:54 +0000

Our classes are ongoing. Check out http://www.carpenterhazlewood.com for the latest schedule.

Comment on HB2753 – Manager Registration/Regulation by Barbara Lee

Barbara Lee — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:51:51 +0000

Let’s see…they will require us to do what we’ve already been doing except now we have yet one more oganization that we have to pay fees too so we can be registared. We also have more continuing educational classes to take. OHHH…the money. I know they hurting. I’m hurting too after about 7 months of unemployment. I do believe we should ensure that our public officials are not short on their regular Christmas bonus. This is ubsurd!

When is your next lew update class? I need to get up to speed on what is going on the legislature this year.

Comment on HB2345, For Sale Signs – Committee Results, Passed 9-0 by Lou Stahl

Lou Stahl — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:03:28 +0000

I am very concerned about the continuing effort by the real estate industry to supersede our CC&R’s and allow the placement of tacky “for sale” and “open house” signs all over our community. The ongoing efforts by the legislature to usurp the provisions of our CC&R’s (which are nothing more than a contract between the homeowners who live in a planned community) appear to be unconstitutional. See the Arizona Constitution, Article II, Section 25. In addition, the attempted “taking” violates Article II, Section 17. Also, see ARS 12-1134, which requires compensation for a dimunition in value resulting from a change in use.

Comment on HB2153 – Passed House 43-14-3, Now Before the Senate by Roy Coffman

Roy Coffman — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 04:09:11 +0000

AS president of an HA, I find this bill not in the best interest of HOA’s or their members. We are located within the City of Phoenix and we cannot even get the police department to do anything about speeders, let alone having our areas look like a used car lot.
The pCity dn PD will never enforce any type of parking restrictions and our streets will start to look like junk yards, used car lots, and RV parking lots.

Comment on Friday Update – February 5, 2010 by Scott Carpenter

Scott Carpenter — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 21:35:02 +0000

Not as written. Municipal and zoning regulations would still be enforceable.

Comment on Friday Update – February 5, 2010 by Walter

Walter — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:11:27 +0000

So Scott, on SB1386, will this override local law as well which may restrict rentals less than 30 days?