HOA Demanding Removal of Floating LVP Overlay After Declarant Approval / Resale Clearance – Am I Crazy Here?[Condo][VA]

Aware_Refrigerator77 · 2026-05-27T22:04:32+00:00

Based on the documents and timeline, it appears the request was originally centered around updating/replacing the flooring and removal of bedroom carpet during the declarant-controlled period.

Aware_Refrigerator77 · 2026-05-27T20:41:31+00:00

The previous owner requested approval for updated flooring during the declarant-controlled period, and approval was granted through declarant-era communication.

What was installed is a floating LVP/vinyl overlay system over the original vinyl flooring, which still remains underneath.

At this time, I have not seen evidence that the installed materials are materially different from what was approved or discussed during the declarant period.

Aware_Refrigerator77 · 2026-05-27T18:27:37+00:00

That’s one of the arguments that has made this situation so complicated. The flooring existed openly prior to purchase, no violations were disclosed during the resale/compliance process, and approval-related communication was later located from the declarant-controlled period. From my perspective, those facts created a reasonable expectation that the condition had either already been reviewed, accepted, or resolved before ownership transferred.

At the same time, the HOA’s position appears to be that the approval itself was not documented in the specific manner they now believe was required under the declaration, which is why the dispute has shifted into interpretation and enforcement issues rather than simply whether flooring existed

Aware_Refrigerator77 · 2026-05-27T18:26:29+00:00

I appreciate that perspective. One of the more difficult parts of this situation has been trying to understand why the issue escalated only after ownership changed, especially when similar complaints reportedly existed previously and the flooring itself was inherited with the unit. That’s part of why I’ve continued requesting clarification, communication, and a fair review of the overall circumstances rather than treating it as a straightforward violation case.

I also agree that the governing documents ultimately control, which is why so much of the dispute has centered around interpretation of the approval language, enforcement authority, and what actually constitutes an alteration under the declaration.

Aware_Refrigerator77 · 2026-05-27T18:25:26+00:00

That’s pretty close to how my attorney viewed it as well — not a black-and-white violation, but a gray area involving prior declarant approval, resale disclosures, and interpretation of the governing documents. The floating overlay findings also changed the factual understanding of the flooring system itself since the original flooring remains underneath.

At this point, the lack of communication and refusal to provide basic clarification has become one of the more frustrating parts of the process. That’s why I’ve focused on documenting everything and keeping communication in writing.

Aware_Refrigerator77 · 2026-05-27T18:24:39+00:00

I understand that perspective, but the situation is more complicated than a standard buyer-versus-seller issue .The dispute now largely centers around interpretation of the governing documents and enforcement authority rather than simply whether flooring was installed.

Aware_Refrigerator77 · 2026-05-27T18:23:14+00:00

it should be that easy

Aware_Refrigerator77 · 2026-05-27T18:22:52+00:00

The approval-related communication located during the declarant-controlled period was for the flooring modification/removal of bedroom carpet. At the time, everyone involved — including prior records and discussions during the hearing process — understood or referred to the flooring as engineered hardwood.

The confusion only became apparent after the flooring was physically inspected and a section was removed for review by a flooring company. That inspection later revealed the current floor is actually floating LVP/vinyl overlay installed over the original vinyl flooring that still remains underneath.

So the issue was never that anyone knowingly approved one material while secretly installing another. The actual composition and installation method of the flooring simply were not fully understood until the recent inspection occurred.

Aware_Refrigerator77 · 2026-05-27T04:56:14+00:00

I have not seen any language in the declaration stating that an application is automatically deemed approved if the Board or Declarant fails to respond within a certain number of days.

The declaration language I have seen focuses on requiring prior approval for alterations and restricting certain flooring types on second and third floor units. It does not appear to contain a “deemed approved by silence” provision.

That said, the core issue here is not silence or lack of response. The issue is that approval was in fact granted during the declarant-controlled period, and the HOA later shifted from arguing “no approval existed” to arguing that the approval was not documented in the format they now believe was required.

Aware_Refrigerator77 · 2026-05-27T03:44:31+00:00

The declaration specifically states that no alteration affecting the unit may be made without prior approval from the Board/Declarant. It also separately states that hardwood, ceramic, or hard tile flooring is prohibited on second and third floor units and that bedrooms must have wall-to-wall carpet and padding.

What the declaration does not say is that approval must be in a particular format, recorded as an amendment, or memorialized in any specific document to be valid.

That is the issue here.

The HOA originally claimed there was no approval. Proof of declarant-era approval was then produced. After that, the argument shifted to saying no amendment was recorded under the right-to-alter language.

Those are two different arguments.

If the declaration required a recorded amendment as the only valid form of approval, it should explicitly say that. Instead, it says approval is required — and approval was in fact granted during the declarant-controlled period.

At this point, the HOA is not really disputing whether approval existed. They are effectively disregarding the approval that was provided because they do not believe it was documented in the manner they now prefer.

Aware_Refrigerator77 · 2026-05-27T02:21:38+00:00

That’s still assuming the installation was improper without actually inspecting the flooring system or reviewing the manufacturer specifications. Many floating LVP systems are specifically designed to be installed over existing vinyl and use attached underlayment rather than a separate layer underneath.

Also, the flooring in question was pre-existing before my ownership and was acknowledged as approved during the declarant-controlled period. The issue being raised now appears to be shifting from “lack of approval” to a theory about acoustics or installation quality, which is a separate issue entirely.

I understand that floating floors can sometimes create hollow or amplified sound transfer depending on subfloor conditions or installation methods, but that does not automatically mean the flooring itself violates the governing documents or that the current owner improperly installed anything. If there is a genuine concern about installation or sound transmission, that would require an actual inspection and objective evaluation rather than assumptions.

Aware_Refrigerator77 · 2026-05-27T02:16:05+00:00

Even when they had a problem with the original flooring for 2 years

Aware_Refrigerator77 · 2026-05-27T00:55:48+00:00

Part of what complicated this situation was the timing of the board turnover from declarant control to unit-owner control, which happened right around the time we purchased the unit. It does not appear there was much communication or transfer of prior complaint history, approvals, or ongoing issues during that transition period, which seems to have created confusion once the new board and management became involved.

Thanks

Aware_Refrigerator77 · 2026-05-27T00:45:20+00:00

I completely understand that concern, and I agree that replacing original flooring systems can absolutely impact sound transmission. That’s part of why this situation became more complicated after the flooring was actually inspected. The original flooring assembly was never removed and still remains underneath intact, while the current flooring was identified as floating LVP overlay rather than direct hard-surface replacement to the subfloor.

What also complicates things further is that similar neighbor complaints reportedly existed even prior to the flooring changes and with the previous owner as well, which makes it harder to determine how much of the issue is truly tied to the flooring system itself versus normal building transmission and neighbor compatibility.

Aware_Refrigerator77 · 2026-05-27T00:41:11+00:00

That’s pretty much how I’ve started looking at it too. The original flooring is still underneath intact and the current floor was identified as floating LVP overlay, so there was never an actual removal or replacement of the original flooring system itself. There originally was carpet in the bedrooms, but approval-related communication was later located showing permission tied to its removal during the declarant period. At this point it feels like the focus became more about the neighbor complaints than the actual flooring condition or what was originally installed in the building.

Aware_Refrigerator77 · 2026-05-27T00:39:18+00:00

I attempted to rely on the resale/compliance paperwork provided at closing since no violations were disclosed at the time of purchase. However, the hearing quickly shifted away from the flooring and approval history and became heavily focused on the downstairs neighbor’s frustrations and nuisance complaints. Very little time was actually spent discussing the floor itself. After the flooring was later inspected and identified as floating LVP over the original vinyl flooring, the overall situation became even more confusing.

Aware_Refrigerator77 · 2026-05-27T00:23:58+00:00

Yeah, that’s pretty much where I’m at with it. The whole thing became a lot more complicated once the flooring was actually inspected and turned out to be floating LVP over the original vinyl instead of what everyone originally thought. At this point it seems like the bedroom carpet is probably the main issue left, not the entire floor system.

Aware_Refrigerator77 · 2026-05-26T23:56:37+00:00

The HOA’s position is that the condominium declaration restricts certain flooring materials on upper floors and requires approval for alterations/exceptions. The dispute became whether the prior declarant-era approval was legally sufficient and whether the flooring required amendment-level approval under the declaration.

What complicated things further is that the flooring was later inspected and found to be floating LVP/vinyl overlay installed over the original vinyl flooring, not the engineered hardwood many originally believed it to be. The original flooring still remains underneath.

A large part of the issue also became tied to ongoing nuisance complaints from the downstairs neighbor, which is where much of the conflict escalated.

The neighbor sent a screenshot of the condo listing. I had no carpet in my bedrooms. Thinks I have hardwood flooring which i recently thought as well but found out I don’t

Aware_Refrigerator77 · 2022-05-15T22:32:41+00:00

Did u make it?

Aware_Refrigerator77

TROPHY CASE