Month: July 2026

April 28, 2026

Community Assets Magazine

Are you overlooking your greatest asset for harmonious community living? While often relegated to an administrative afterthought, rules and regulations are the most adaptable tools for community association management. Well-crafted rules empower effective management and cultivate a positive environment within a community. But ignore them at your peril. Rules left alone too long start plotting mischief like gremlins after midnight.

Unlike declarations and bylaws, rules and regulations can usually be amended by the board without unit owner approval. However, they cannot override or conflict with the declarations or bylaws. This flexibility makes rules and regulations well-suited to address communities’ evolving needs.

Communities can stay current with emerging trends by implementing effective rules and regulations. For instance, nearly half of the states in the country (including New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland) have statutes restricting community associations from regulating solar panels. Additionally, at least seven states have pending or enacted legislation that limits a community association’s authority over electronic vehicle (EV) chargers. Most of these laws prohibit outright bans and unreasonable regulations that effectively preclude the meaningful use of these devices.

Since similar laws regarding solar panels and EV chargers could be passed in Pennsylvania, board members and managers should start planning now. It is far easier to set up clear rules from the beginning than to deal with problems after people have already started changing their homes. Moreover, there is a lot of helpful information out there for creating fair and reasonable guidelines. Adopting regulations after the fact or on an ad hoc basis can lead to unnecessary stress and conflict.

Staying with the times also means removing outdated language and concepts from rules and regulations. For example, parking rules adopted before land yachts became the standard form of transportation in many suburbs may need to be revisited. Some older regulations may even violate the law, such as restrictions on displaying flags that conflict with the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act (see article on Page 28). Banning certain age groups from amenities (e.g., “no children under 12”) or imposing greater occupancy limits than building or fire codes may violate the federal Fair Housing Act or state equivalents.

Older regulations that fail to distinguish between pets, support animals and service animals can also be a source of unnecessary stress and confusion. For example, the use of “seeing-eye dog” is almost always an indicator that the rules and regulations have not kept with the times. However, most problems with animal and pet regulations are not that obvious. If even a modest sheen of dust can be seen on an association’s animal and pet regulations, it is a good idea to have an attorney review for compliance with federal and state law.

Another frequent source of friction is outdated technology-related rules drafted during the Facsimile Era (a short-lived sub-era of the Pleistocene marked by dial tones, tangled phone cords, and lawyers yelling “did the fax go through?”). Older regulations often address satellite dishes, antennas or exterior wiring in ways that no longer align with federal law or modern living. The features of modern living include high-speed internet, remote work setups, video doorbells, exterior cameras or package-delivery infrastructure. Rules that flatly prohibit exterior devices, visible wiring or common-element equipment can conflict with federal protections (such as the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule (OTARD)) or prevent reasonable, low-impact installations that have become commonplace. Updating such rules to balance resident expectations with aesthetics, safety and installation standards invites less controversy than outright bans.

Now for the gremlins (for the younger readers, a movie bearing this name was released in 1984 and provides keen insight into community association management). These are the forgotten rules that are no longer enforced. To appreciate the problems posed by such rules, managers and board members must realize that associations have a duty to enforce them. If injury to a person or property results from failing to do so, then the association faces liability for the injury. Common examples include weight restrictions on dogs or outright dog bans. If an association has a 30 lb. weight restriction for dogs yet permits such unit-owner affinity groups as the Mastiff Load-Bearing Dog Caucus or the Great Dane Common-Element Occupancy Group, then the association has little more than an uncontained risk. Much like ignoring the “no food after midnight” sign on the Mogwai cage (see previous film reference). Simply stated, if the rule is no longer enforced, then it should probably be removed.

For these reasons, associations should form committees that routinely review the rules and regulations to ensure they keep pace with national and state trends as well as the unique characteristics of their communities. In addition, it is a good idea to have your rules and regulations regularly reviewed by an insurance professional and attorney.

Many of the principles discussed here apply equally to declarations and bylaws. Although those documents are less flexible than rules and regulations, changes to the law may permit boards to adopt certain amendments without unit-owner approval when supported by an independent legal opinion. In all cases, regular review of governing documents helps prevent internal inconsistencies, ensures compliance with current law and identifies potential amendments that reflect the community’s changing needs.

About the Author

Matthew C. Collins is chair of Horn Williamson’s Community Association Group, representing condominium, homeowner and cooperative associations throughout Pennsylvania. He provides clients with advice, enabling them to navigate complex situations and resolve issues in a practical and cost-effective manner. Matt can be reached at mcollins@hornwilliamson.com and 267.282.6057.

July 8, 2026

In 1979, a Barnard College student was tragically killed when falling masonry from a property on West 115th Street struck her. In 1980, then New York City Mayor Ed Koch signed Local Law 10, requiring buildings more than six stories tall to have their street-facing façades inspected every five years. Unfortunately, debris from buildings continued to fall in New York, giving rise to Local Law 11 in 1998. Local Law 11 requires buildings more than six stories tall to undergo close-up, hands-on inspections of all four façades every five years, accompanied by an evaluation from a Qualified Exterior Wall Inspector.

While everyone understands the importance of compliance with Local Law 11, doing so can be challenging because scaffolding and sidewalk sheds must be erected and buildings nearly abut one another. A Local Law 11 Agreement, more commonly known as an Access Agreement, is a legal contract that permits a building owner to enter an adjoining property to perform the mandatory façade inspections, erect sidewalk sheds or complete structural repairs.

Here are three things to know about these agreements:

Key Elements of the Agreement

Negotiating a license agreement usually revolves around three core components:

  1. Scope: The agreement must clearly define the work to be performed, the duration, and the equipment to be used.
  2. Indemnification and Insurance: The building owner seeking access must agree to hold the adjoining owner harmless and name the adjoining owner as an additional insured so that any damage or accidents are covered.
  3. Protection: The building owner seeking access must protect the adjoining property and agree to restore any damage that might occur.

Dispute Resolution (RPAPL §881)

Local Law 11 does not require an adjoining property to grant access voluntarily. While the majority of property owners are able to reach an agreement amicably, New York law recognizes that negotiations may fail. If that happens, the building owner seeking access can ask a court to order the neighboring property to grant access under court-mandated terms and conditions. This is codified in New York State Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) Section 881. Courts typically grant the petitioning owner (the owner seeking access) a license upon the neighboring property, but the petitioning owner must show that the work is necessary and submit detailed documentation to the court. The court will often order the petitioning owner to pay for the neighbor’s legal and architectural fees, as well as a license fee (compensation for the inconvenience or loss of use of the property).

Changing Legal Landscape Produces New Hurdles

Local Law 11 has been effective in preventing injuries from falling debris. The adverse side effect is that the City is plagued by unsightly scaffolding and sidewalk sheds, which hinder pedestrians and obscure views of the buildings’ façades. In April 2025, an initiative known as the “Get Sheds Down” plan took effect, which, among other actions, shortened the permit duration for sidewalk sheds and increased the fines and penalties for dragging out construction. As a result, building owners are now encouraged to finalize their façade inspections and correction plans before finalizing an access agreement and “starting the clock.”

If you need assistance with an access agreement or RPAPL Section 881 action, the attorneys at Horn Williamson & Collins can assist you. Counsel familiar with Local Law 11 can be reached at 212.763.3793 or at https://hornwilliamson.com/contact/.

July 6, 2026

I recently attended the Managing Partner Forum’s 2026 Leadership Conference in Atlanta, GA where law firm leaders from across the country gathered to discuss the challenges and opportunities shaping our profession. The conversations were candid, practical and reassuring in one important way: many firms, regardless of size or market, are wrestling with the same core questions.

How do we grow responsibly? How do we build stronger teams? How do we adopt emerging technology? And how do we delegate in a way that empowers people?

My biggest takeaway was simple: managing a law firm is not primarily about policies, systems or spreadsheets. Those things matter. Financial discipline matters. Clear processes matter. But none of them work unless the people inside the organization understand the mission, trust the direction and feel empowered to do their jobs well.

Law Firms Are Businesses Built on People

Whether we like it or not, law firms are businesses. And at the end of the day, they run on the strength of their people. Every client experience is shaped by the people who prepare the case, develop the strategy, communicate with clients and advocate on their behalf. Profitability remains the goal, but investing in our people is how we achieve it. Our work depends on their judgment, advocacy, preparation, responsiveness and the trust they build with clients. That means leadership begins with investing in the people who deliver those things every day.

Delegation Is a Leadership Skill

One recurring theme at the conference was delegation. Not delegation in the superficial sense of handing someone a task and hoping it gets done, but real delegation: giving capable people clear authority, clear expectations and enough room to make decisions.

That clarity becomes even more important as a firm grows. Informal communication can work when an organization is small. Growth, however, requires more structure. It requires leaders to define responsibilities, communicate priorities and create repeatable systems so that talented people are not forced to rely on guesswork. Instead, they have the clarity and confidence to make decisions and thrive.

Building a Firm That Can Grow

At Horn Williamson & Collins, we have grown significantly over the last several years. That growth has created exciting opportunities, but it has also required us to think more intentionally about leadership, operations, communication and culture.

The leadership conference reinforced that growth is not just about adding lawyers, expanding practice areas or increasing revenue. Those are obviously important, but sustainable growth depends on the culture, habits and leadership structure necessary to support our people and serve our clients at the highest level. If you build it, the profitability follows.

Strong Firms Are Built by Strong Leaders

I left the conference with a renewed appreciation for the business of law, but even more so for the human side of leadership. The best firms are not simply well-managed—they are well-led and built to scale. They invest in people. They delegate with purpose. They build systems that support excellence rather than bureaucracy. And they understand that profitability and strong culture are not competing goals but deeply connected.

For me, the lesson was both practical and personal: leadership is not about having all the answers. It is about building an organization where the right people are trusted, supported and empowered.

I look forward to being back next year.