Federal requirements and court cases involving the disabled are beginning to impact homeowner associations. The Fair Housing Act definition includes a wide range of conditions that qualify including major physical disabilities, mental retardation, emotional or mental illness, some learning disabilities, visual, speech and hearing impairments, cerebral palsy, autism, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease and HIV. While associations have not been the prime target of the Fair Housing Act yet, it's clear that the association and the board of directors have liability when dealing with disability issues.

Homeowner associations are supposed to make "reasonable accommodations" for disabled residents. Examples include suspending a No Pets Rule for a seeing eye dog or suspending an unassigned parking policy to accommodate a reserved space near a unit occupied by a disabled person. "Reasonable" does not include installations that would cause an extraordinary expense to the association or not substantially enhance the disabled resident's use and enjoyment of the facilities. In other words, the association may weigh the cost vs benefit in making accommodations. For example, it's acceptable for the board to deny suspending a No Pets Rule to a blind person who wants a cat since the accommodation must be related to the disability.

One disability issue involving associations is group homes, typically for mentally or physically disabled, within a "single family, residential use only" homeowner association. While some associations may try to prohibit them, court cases and many state statutes make it clear that prohibitions cannot apply to group homes.

An example of disability accommodation involved a disabled woman who purchased a condominium in the Pacific Northwest. Shortly after moving in during July, she informed the manager that she was going to install a through the wall air conditioner due to "doctor's orders". She was informed that she needed board approval and should make a written request. Several days later, the request with a short statement from her doctor attached was received and promptly forwarded to the Board President for consideration.

Several days later, the manager noticed a new through-the-wall A/C installation at the unit in question. The Board President was promptly notified that the new resident's A/C request was "ex post facto". The board reacted aggressively and penned a certified letter to the resident demanding immediate removal of the A/C unit. Within days, a phone call was received from an disabled advocacy group which suggested that it might be in the association's "best interests" to accommodate the resident.

The association attorney recommended a compromise: The A/C be allowed to stay under a special medical exception however, the resident was to remove and restore the exterior wall upon vacating. The board disagreed with the recommendation and hired another lawyer who advocated more aggressive handling. A year later, the A/C was still in place, the association had spent considerable money on attorney fees and a threatened lawsuit from the advocacy group convinced the board to back down.

Disabilities are a fact of life and, now, law. So far, the Americans with Disabilities Act has not specifically targeted homeowner associations so the boards still have considerable latitude on disability questions. However, boards that unilaterally deny reasonable accommodations may be targeted to close the loopholes in the law. It is good policy not to test these waters.

When it comes to disability questions, the board is challenged to include compassion, reasonableness and creativity in its decision making. It's an exciting challenge. Take the ADA bull by the horns and show what a progressive community can do.

For more information on this subject, see www.Regenesis.net.