Search

Answer: You are referring to MHCO Form 35B "Manufactured Home Storage Agreement (With Homeowner)." Before addressing your specific questions, it is necessary to point out what this form is intended to do. Here are some that come quickly to mind: (a) A resident, living alone, moves out of the home and wants to sell it on site; (b) A person inherits or buys the home, but cannot be approved for occupancy due to the background check or their financial condition; (c) A resident, living alone, passes away, and the estate wants to sell it.

It is important to remember that this is a "storage" agreement not a "rental" agreement. In fact, it expressly disclaims a "landlord-tenant" relationship between the community and the home owner. Accordingly, the legal relationship is more akin to one in which a party stores their property in a commercial storage facility.

You should not treat a breach of the Storage Agreement as something that is remedied by going to FED court. Rather, the provisions of Oregon law dealing with statutory liens in ORS 87.152 et. seq. apply. This process can get very complicated, and I highly recommend that you secure the services of an attorney before proceeding.

Lastly, the MHCO Storage Agreement contains a provision for mandatory arbitration, in lieu of any other court or legal process. However, the box on the form must be checked in order for it to apply. The reason that this arbitration alternative exists is because it was believed that the process mandated by the statutes might be better implemented for park owners through arbitration, which can be cheaper, faster, and easier - especially if the matter becomes contested.

The MHCO form does require that the home be maintained by the owner. Accordingly, you may wish to consider sending a notice to the owner demanding that they do the clean-up work or you will do so, and pass the charge on to them. I don't think the issue of payments and maintenance are the same. Accordingly, I don't believe there is a need to discontinue accepting payments. However, all of this needs to be handled carefully, and for this you should speak with your attorney.

Answer: Bad news on both fronts. Let me answer your second question first. You may NOT share in a real estate commission unless you have your own Oregon real estate license. This prohibition against commission sharing even applies between real estate agents and the homeowner they represent. Here is the applicable Oregon Law:

ORS 696.290 [Sharing compensation with or paying finders fee to unlicensed person prohibited]

(1)A real estate licensee may not offer, promise, allow, give, pay or rebate, directly or indirectly, any part or share of the licensees compensation arising or accruing from any real estate transaction or pay a finders fee to any person who is not a real estate licensee licensed under ORS 696.022 (Licensing system for real estate brokers and property managers). However, a real estate broker or principal real estate broker may pay a finders fee or a share of the licensees compensation on a cooperative sale when the payment is made to a licensed real estate broker in another state or country, provided that the state or country in which that broker is licensed has a law permitting real estate brokers to cooperate with real estate brokers or principal real estate brokers in this state and that such nonresident real estate broker does not conduct in this state any acts constituting professional real estate activity and for which compensation is paid. If a country does not license real estate brokers, the payee must be a citizen or resident of the country and represent that the payee is in the business of real estate brokerage in the other country. A real estate broker associated with a principal real estate broker may not accept compensation from any person other than the principal real estate broker with whom the real estate broker is associated at the time. A principal real estate broker may not make payment to the real estate broker of another principal real estate broker except through the principal real estate broker with whom the real estate broker is associated. Nothing in this section prevents payment of compensation earned by a real estate broker or principal real estate broker while licensed, because of change of affiliation or inactivation of the brokers license.

(2)Nothing in subsection (1) of this section prohibits a real estate licensee who has a written property management agreement with the owner of a residential building or facility from authorizing the payment of a referral fee, rent credit or other compensation to an existing tenant of the owner or licensee, or a former tenant if the former tenant resided in the building or facility within the previous six months, as compensation for referring new tenants to the licensee.

(3)(a) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section prevents an Oregon real estate broker or principal real estate broker from sharing compensation on a cooperative nonresidential real estate transaction with a person who holds an active real estate license in another state or country, provided:

(A)Before the out-of-state real estate licensee performs any act in this state that constitutes professional real estate activity, the licensee and the cooperating Oregon real estate broker or principal real estate broker agree in writing that the acts constituting professional real estate activity conducted in this state will be under the supervision and control of the cooperating Oregon broker and will comply with all applicable Oregon laws;

(B)The cooperating Oregon real estate broker or principal real estate broker accompanies the out-of-state real estate licensee and the client during any property showings or negotiations conducted in this state; and

(C)All property showings and negotiations regarding nonresidential real estate located in this state are conducted under the supervision and control of the cooperating Oregon real estate broker or principal real estate broker.

(b) As used in this subsection, nonresidential real estate means real property that is improved or available for improvement by commercial structures or five or more residential dwelling units.

As for requiring that residents use your preferred agent, that too is a No-No. Here is that statute [I've underscored the applicable provision in subsection (1).] The term "services" can clearly be applied to real estate brokerage services, and as such, I cannot recommend that you impose that condition on residents when they want to sell their home.

90.525 [Unreasonable conditions of rental or occupancy prohibited.]

(1) No landlord shall impose conditions of rental or occupancy which unreasonably restrict the tenant or prospective tenant in choosing a fuel supplier, furnishings, goods, services or accessories.

(2) No landlord of a facility shall require the prospective tenant to purchase a manufactured dwelling or floating home from a particular dealer or one of a group of dealers.

(3) No landlord renting a space for a manufactured dwelling or floating home shall give preference to a prospective tenant who purchased a manufactured dwelling or floating home from a particular dealer.

(4) No manufactured dwelling or floating home dealer shall require, as a condition of sale, a purchaser to rent a space for a manufactured dwelling or floating home in a particular facility or one of a group of facilities. [Formerly 91.895; 1991 c.844 _7]

The short answer to your first question is "no," you do not have to give the long-time tenant the same 30-day notice as required for mobile home tenants. That notice under ORS 90.632 is only for mobile home tenants, not RVs. Since RVs are not "manufactured dwellings," you have some better options available.

Normally, I would recommend a 30-day, for-cause notice under ORS 90.392 requiring the tenant to repair his RV. Presumably your park has a rule requiring homes and RVs to be kept in good repair, which you would use as the basis for the notice. The 30-day notice would give the tenant 14 days to repair the RV or face termination of his tenancy at the end of the 30 days.

However, in this particular case it sounds like the travel trailer has been dilapidated for quite some time. Under ORS 90.412, you waived the right to evict the long-time tenant based on the condition of his RV by accepting rent for 3 or more months with knowledge of the condition of the RV. That is why I always recommend addressing problems with a notice as soon as the condition arises. (The rule is different for mobile homes - parks don't waive the right to evict even if the condition of the home has been longstanding).

Under the circumstances, your best option is to simply issue a 60-day, no-cause notice terminating the long-time tenancy. Presumably the tenant has been there for more than one year as a month to month tenant, which requires a 60-day notice.

The newer RV tenant with the messy space is a different story. If the condition of his space only became an issue recently, you could go with the 30-day, for-cause notice mentioned above. The basis of the notice would be your park rules requiring tenants to maintain their spaces, along with ORS 90.325 (1)(b) which requires tenants to keep their spaces "clean, sanitary and free from all accumulations" of debris and rubbish.

If the messy conditions have existed for 3 or more months, then you're only left with the no-cause eviction notice option. However, if the newer RV tenant has been there less than a year as a month to month tenant, the notice can be a 30-day, no-cause notice instead of a 60-day notice.

Answer: ORS 90.630(3), the statute governing the issuance of 30-day notices of termination in manufactured housing communities, permits a landlord to issue a 30-day notice to a tenant who is '_classified as a level three sex offender under ORS 181.800 (3)[1] or is determined to be a predatory sex offender under ORS 181.838... ."[2] The notice is non-curable, and must so state.

I point this statute out simply to underscore that protections exist inside the park to unilaterally issue a 30-day non-curable termination notice if a resident is determined to be a sex offender. The rationale for the law is fairly obvious - the presence of a sexual predator inside the community creates an inherent danger to other residents and their guests.

Of course, the statute only addresses other tenants. It says nothing about invitees of tenants who may come into the community to provide materials or other services, which is what your question deals with. However, a guest or invitee who is a sexual predator is no less of a threat when he's inside the community than a resident who is a sexual predator. For that reason, i.e. the safety and security of other residents, you should act promptly. Before doing so, though, be sure that you personally verify that he is a registered sex offender, and, if possible, obtain a copy of the document verifying it for your records. Then proceed as follows:

1. Contact the resident for whom the person is working and tell him or her of the community's concern, and ask that the worker be told that due to his criminal record he may no longer come into the community. If the resident agrees to cooperate, that should suffice. [Note: This approach assumes that the resident is cooperative in nature, and there is little or no risk that he will return. If the resident is uncooperative, then proceed to No. 2 below.]
2. If the resident refuses to cooperate, then you will have to escalate the matter. Deliver a No-Trespassing notice to the resident to give to the maintenance person, saying that he may no longer come to the community for any reason. The letter should say that if he violates this demand, you will call the police and have him removed as a trespasser. [Note: My preference would be to deliver it to the workman (with copy to resident) personally, since that way you'll know he has actual notice. However, I would leave the decision to you. If you do it in person, make sure you have another witness with you. You may want to first speak to the local police department regarding this approach, since some may have specific protocols they want followed if they are to later be called upon to enforce it.]

The use of a trespass letter can be helpful in many scenarios where there is a person coming into the community that causes upset to other residents. In many cases - and perhaps even in your case - the problem guest is a relative of the resident, which accounts for their willingness to have them there notwithstanding their past criminal conduct. But remember, as a park owner [this is not something managers should do without the owner's express knowledge and consent] you have a duty to avoid dangerous situations you become aware of, and the frequent presence of a known registered sexual predator in the community certainly qualifies.

[1] ORS 181.800(3) provides that a '_level three sex offender who presents the highest risk of reoffending and requires the widest range of notification."

[2] ORS 181.838 relates to juveniles, and provides that (1) '_a person is a predatory sex offender if the person: (a) Is required to report as a sex offender under ORS 181.809 as the result of a finding that the person committed an act that if committed by an adult in this state would constitute a predatory sex offense; and (b) Exhibits characteristics showing a tendency to victimize or injure others. (2) In determining whether a person is a predatory sex offender, an agency shall use a sex offender risk assessment tool approved by the Department of Corrections or a community corrections agency. (3) As used in this section, "predatory sex offense" means a sex crime listed in ORS 181.805 (5)(a) to (d) or an attempt to commit a sex crime listed in ORS 181.805 (5)(a) to (d), if the sex crime is classified as a felony.

Answer: The basic rule is that a landlord is required to provide an RV park that is "kept in every part safe for normal and reasonably foreseeable uses." Practically speaking, this means that if you know about a particular danger or threat of danger, as a landlord you must take reasonable steps to reduce or eliminate that danger.

The real question of course is what are the "reasonable steps" to take? At the basic level, you should make sure that you have adequate lighting that is well-maintained to illuminate the park streets at night (i.e., replace those burned out bulbs). Your resident manager should also conduct several walk-throughs throughout the day, preferably in the early morning and evening hours to note any problems. If you have a perimeter fence around your park, make sure that it is kept in good repair and that entrance gates are working and secure.

Part of the obligation to keep your park safe is to also promptly enforce all park rules with written warnings and/or eviction notices if necessary. A good example would be an unauthorized occupant staying with one of your tenants who you have reason to suspect is involved in park thefts. Even if you don't have solid proof of the thefts, you can rely on the fact that the person is not an authorized tenant and evict on that basis alone. You should also immediately evict any particular tenant who is causing trouble. (Hint: Consider a simple no-cause eviction notice.)

If you've done all these things and are still having problems, do you have to hire a security guard? Probably not, but it all depends on the circumstances. The test is what is reasonable to eliminate or reduce the danger. In some cases, that might mean installing security cameras if it would reduce thefts and it is financially reasonable (and in this day and age, security cameras are relatively inexpensive and easy to install). In other cases, it might be reasonable to install a perimeter fence to keep out pedestrians cutting through the park (and helping themselves to tenants' personal property).

In the end, you will be held to the standard of providing a reasonably safe park for your tenants. If you know about a particular danger or potential danger, take immediate steps to reduce that danger. While you can't eliminate every threat, you can reduce your risk of liability by addressing foreseeable threats.

Answer: As for the first question regarding tenants "paying back the community for the meter and cost of installation, I believe you are referring to subsection (4) of ORS 90.537 [Conversion of billing method for utility or service charges.] It is summarized below:

The landlord that installs submeters pursuant to this statute may recover from a tenant the cost of installing the submeters, including the costs to improve or repair the existing utility or service system infrastructure necessitated by the installation of the submeters. There are two alternatives:

1. By raising the rent, as with any capital expense in the community, except that the landlord may not raise the rent for that purpose within the first six months after installation of the submeters; or

1. In a manufactured dwelling park, the landlord may impose a special assessment;

1. It must pursuant to a written special assessment plan and may be adopted unilaterally by the landlord;
2. The plan may include only the landlord's actual costs to be recovered on a pro rata basis from each tenant;
3. Payments may be made due no more frequently than monthly over a period of at least 60 months.
4. Payments must be assessed as part of the utility or service charge [i.e. separate from the "rent."];
5. The landlord must give each tenant a copy of the plan at least 90 days before the first payment is due.;
6. Payments may not be due before the completion of the installation, but must begin within six months after completion.
7. A new tenant of a space subject to the plan may be required to make payments under the plan [i.e. even though the system was installed before they arrived];
8. Payments must end when the plan ends.
9. The landlord is not required to provide an accounting of plan payments made during or after the end of the plan.

You want to make sure you follow one of the two alternatives, as they are the only two methods by which you may recover back the capital costs of the system and its installation. As for "ownership" of the system, it belongs to you as the owner of the park. It is treated no differently than if you simply recovered the cost of any amenity via periodic rent increases. The fact that the tenants pay a pro rata portion of the cost in their base rent does not give them any ownership rights in the amenities paid for. As for maintenance, since you own the system, maintenance is your responsibility. Of course, you may recover that cost through periodic rent increases.

As to your second question, it appears your answer is found at Section 2.f, above which is highlighted above. Since tenant payments did not commence within the first six months after installation, I believe it would be risky for you to do so now. You will not Section 2. g, which refers to new tenants who came in after the installation. Clearly Section 2.f was not meant to apply to them. Arguably, then, you might be able to recover the cost from them going forward. However, I can see a contrary argument, that since the cost recovery was never made part of a "special assessment plan," you're too late for that too. Your best bet might be to simply include any cost recovery from existing and future tenants through periodic rent increases, since there does not appear to be any time limit on your doing so. However, you should consult your own attorney on this approach before doing so.

Answer: Here is a summary of ORS 90.260, the late fee statute. It answers the questions posed above.

(1) A landlord may impose a late charge or fee, however designated, only if:

• The rent payment is not received by the fourth day of the period for which rent is payable; and
• There exists a written rental agreement that specifies:
  • The tenant's obligation to pay a late charge;
  • The type and amount of the late charge; and
  • The date on which rent payments are due, and the date on which late charges become due.

(2) The amount of any late charge may not exceed:

• A reasonable flat amount, charged once per rental period. "Reasonable amount" means the customary amount charged by landlords for that rental market;
• A reasonable amount, charged on a per-day basis, beginning on the fifth day of the rental period for which rent is delinquent. This daily charge may accrue every day thereafter until the rent (not including any late charge), is paid in full, through that rental period only. The per-day charge may not exceed six percent of the amount of the "reasonable lat amount", described above; or
• Five percent of the periodic rent payment amount, charged once for each succeeding five-day period, or portion thereof, for which the rent payment is delinquent, beginning on the fifth day of that rental period and continuing until that rent payment (not including any late charge), is paid in full, through that rental period only.

(3) In periodic tenancies (e.g. month-to-month), a landlord may change the type or amount of late charge by giving 30 days' written notice to the tenant.

(4) A landlord may not deduct a previously imposed late charge from a current or subsequent rental period rent payment in order to make the rent payment short so as to issue a 72-hour notice of nonpayment.

(5) A landlord may charge simple interest on an unpaid late charge at the rate allowed for judgments (9.00%) and accruing from the date the late charge is imposed.

(6) Nonpayment of a late charge alone is not grounds for termination of a rental agreement for nonpayment of rent, but is grounds for termination of a rental agreement for cause by using a curable 30-day written notice of termination. [Note: The landlord may identify the late charge on the 72-hour notice of nonpayment of rent, so long as it makes clear that the tenant may cure the nonpayment notice by paying only the delinquent rent, not including any late charge.]

Answer: The tenant application process is one of the least understood by landlords and managers. This lack of familiarity can result in significant liability to park owners. Here is a short primer:

Screening Criteria. The manufactured housing section of Oregon's landlord-tenant law provides that any conditions the landlord applies in approving a purchaser who will live in the community should be disclosed in the existing resident's rental or lease agreement.[1] Although those conditions must be in conformance with state and federal laws, there are no limitations or restrictions as to what criteria may be placed in the rental or lease agreement.

If you are changing your screening criteria for existing residents, you may be in violation of Oregon law, since those criteria are supposed to already be in the rental agreement, which, as you know, cannot be unilaterally amended by a landlord - subject only to specific exceptions.

MHCO's rental and lease agreement forms contain a number of criteria that landlords may impose, such as: (a) prior rental references; (b) unsatisfactory credit history or no credit history; (c) character references; (d) criminal history; (e) insufficient income to reasonably meet the monthly space rent and other expense obligations imposed by the rental or lease agreement; (f) the presence, number and size of pets; (g) age verification criteria if the park is a 55+ facility; (h) evidence of falsified or misleading material information; (i) refusal to sign a written lease or rental agreement; (j) additional occupants; and (k) adverse public record information.

Note that in 2013, the Oregon Legislature changed the law as it relates to "criminal history." Now, landlords and managers may not summarily reject a prospective tenant for "any" criminal history. Today, it is limited to:

• Pending criminal charges, or
• Prior criminal convictions, if they resulted from crimes that are:
  • Drug-related;
  • Against persons;
  • Sexual in nature;
  • Fraudulent in nature; or
  • That could adversely affect the property, health, safety, or peaceful enjoyment of the landlord, landlord's agents, or tenants.

To remind landlords and managers, MHCO will be adding these clarifications to its rental and lease agreement forms. In the meantime, landlords and managers should adhere to the new limitations described above.

Although there may be other criteria that landlords and managers may wish to use when deciding whether to accept an applicant, the above list in the MHCO form is very comprehensive, and should be sufficient in imposing adequate guidelines when a resident wishes to sell their home on site. If you want to make a change by adding additional screening criteria, you may only do so for new residents coming into the community - not retroactively for existing residents.

Landlords and managers should become familiar with the criteria imposed in their rental agreements and rental application forms. Additionally, they should not rely upon the application information submitted to them without a thorough background check providing necessary verification. Although Oregon law imposes a 7-day or 10-day period[2] within which landlords have to respond to a submitted application, it does not prohibit landlords from imposing a longer period so long as the applicant agrees. Additionally, Oregon law expressly states that the 7-day or 10-day period does not commence if the application is incomplete or inaccurate. Accordingly, landlords and managers would be wise to immediately return any submitted application if it is incomplete - and upon discovering that the prospective tenant/purchaser provided inaccurate information, the application should also be returned. Accepting an incomplete application or continuing with the process after discovering that the applicant has provided incorrect information can result in an argument by the existing tenant or the new applicant that the landlord is intentionally delaying the process.

Conclusion. Landlords would have fewer tenant problems if they took more time during the screening process. This means resisting the temptation to fill a space quicker than the approval process actually takes. Unfortunately, the desire to have the rental flow commence quickly can result in the process becoming rushed. Landlords and managers should never allow the applicant to rush them. Nor should they ever permit an applicant to move into a home before the process has been completed and a new rental agreement signed. Lastly, fairness and uniformity in screening will help to avoid the ever-present liability that can occur under the federal and state Fair Housing laws when one applicant claims they were treated differently than another.

[1] Although the law provides that the screening criteria must be in the rental or lease agreement, they may also be found in the rules and regulations. While there is no problem with this, other than redundancy, landlords should be careful to make sure that the criteria are the same. Similarly, the criteria may also be put in the Statement of Policy, but similar caution should be exercised to make them consistent. My approach is however, to avoid the risk of inconsistency by not repeating the same requirements in multiple documents. If one document gets changed and the others don't there will be an inconsistency.

[2] The longer period exists if the tenant failed to give the landlord at least 10-days advance notice of intent to sell his/her home.

Answer:

It is permissible to rent to overnighters, but there are some important differences that you must keep in mind when you do.

The first and most important difference is that overnighters are not considered "tenants" under Oregon law if the landlord follows Oregon's "vacation occupancy" requirements. The requirements are: (1) The "guest" is only staying for vacation purposes, not as a residence; (2) the guest has a principle residence other than at the park; and, (3) the guest's stay cannot exceed 45 days. (Hint: Make a copy of each guest's driver's license to keep on file to prove that they have a permanent residence elsewhere.) If you ensure that the "guest" meets these requirements, they do not have the rights or remedies that RV tenants have under Oregon law.

If you follow these requirements, you do not have to file an eviction case if the guest fails to vacate or fails to pay. You can simply ask that they immediately leave or have the sheriff remove them. You should not have to worry about any "tenancy" complaints or threats of habitability claims, etc.

The caveat is that some sheriff officers won't make an overnighter leave, telling the park owner that it is a "civil eviction matter." There are two main ways to avoid this problem. The first is to maintain a good relationship with your local police officers. A little bit of good will can go a long way towards gaining their cooperation with this type of problem. The second thing to do is make sure you have the "guest" sign a short term RV registration agreement that acknowledges his or her status as non-tenants.

An RV registration agreement should list Oregon's vacation occupancy requirements mentioned above. (My office or a knowledgeable attorney can easily draft a registration agreement for this purpose.) It should also contain a specific acknowledgment that the guests are not "tenants" and can be immediately removed at any time. Showing a sheriff this acknowledgment - signed by the overnighter - should make it much easier to have the sheriff show the RV'er the front gate, if necessary.

One caveat on renting RV spaces to overnighters is that Oregon law requires that bathroom facilities be provided to vacation campers. If your park doesn'thave bathrooms available, you should not rent to overnighters. However, depending on the circumstances, you may be able to meet this requirement with portable facilities, although always check with an attorney before making that decision.

Mark L. Busch, P.C.
Attorney at Law
Cornell West, Suite 200
1500 NW Bethany Blvd.
Beaverton, Oregon 97006

Ph: 503-597-1309
Fax: 503-430-7593
Web: www.marklbusch.com
Email: mark@marklbusch.com

Answer: Under the Fair Housing Act ("the Act") housing providers including landlords, are required to make reasonable accommodations to the rented facilities and common areas, if requested by a handicapped tenant or their legal occupant ('the requestor").

Landlords are entitled to obtain reasonable information from the requestor in order to assist in determining whether the requested accommodation is reasonably necessary because of the disability. If a person(s) disability is obvious, or otherwise known to the landlord, and if the need for the requested accommodation is readily apparent or known, then the landlord may not seek any additional information about the requestor's disability or the disability-related need for the accommodation. This law also applies to the use of assistance animals.

A "reasonable accommodation" is a reasonable change, exception or adjustment to a rule, policy practice or service that will enable a handicapped person to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the rented facilities and common areas. There must be an identifiable relationship between the requested accommodation and the person's disability. Landlords are not required to make requested accommodations if doing so would impose an undue financial or administrative burden upon them or fundamentally alter the nature of the landlord's operations. With respect to a person, a "handicap" means: (a) one with a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities; (b) one with a record of such impairment; or (c) one who is regarded as having such an impairment. [Juvenile offenders, sex offenders, persons who illegally use controlled substances and those with a disability whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to others, or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others, are generally not protected under the Act.]

If a landlord refuses a requested accommodation, the requestor is encouraged to have a discussion with the landlord concerning an alternative accommodation. This is a summary only and not intended to constitute legal advice. For more information, landlords, tenants and legal occupants of tenants are encouraged to consult with their attorney or a Fair Housing expert if they have any questions regarding their rights and responsibilities.

My first reaction is that what the resident is requesting is not appropriate for several reasons [and not simply because other residents do not have computers and cannot access Facebook]. Here is a sampling:

• He is asking for information that goes to business/management issues that may not be appropriate for sharing with residents, either because it is not available, it is subject to change, it may not be known, etc. Even if it is appropriate for discussion at the general meetings, I can see this forum moving in the direction of demanding more and more information than management is willing to share. The test for content is, I suppose, whether it would be a topic of discussion at open meetings.
• There should be one time and place for these meetings, and if you are not going to give up open meetings at scheduled times, then the Facebook approach is not only duplicative, but risks creating two lines of communication, one at the public meetings and the other over the Internet. You should limit the meetings to the open forum.
• Anonymity is a dangerous format for questions, since he could simply begin making up his own questions, turning the Facebook forum into an opportunity for his own private inquisition.
• I don't think I would like to see my residents' questions spread across the Internet, for business reasons. Resident meetings are not open to the public, as far as I know. Why would you do so with an Internet forum?
• Clearly, what he wants is not what the other residents want - his request for the accommodation ignores their wishes and your needs as a manager. In other words, it is administratively impossible.
• I'm sure with time I could come up with a host of other objections.

You should, of course, take this request seriously. While you want to briefly explain why you are unwilling to participate in this process, you don't want this to get into a lengthy dialogue on the matter. For example, what if you gave three reasons for declining his request? Then he files a Fair Housing claim, and you then give five reasons? It appears that you just made up two new ones. Accordingly, anything you say should be couched in "Here are some - but not necessarily all - of the reasons I cannot grant your request. The shorter the better. No need to get into a lengthy letter writing campaign.

You should definitely make a counter-proposal for the kind of accommodation you can grant - e.g. have someone take minutes of the open meetings (not recordings). He and everyone else can have the minutes for review. If anyone wants to raise a question or comment about the minutes, they may do so at the following meeting. He can select a proxy - i.e. another resident - to relay his questions and concerns at the meetings he does not want to attend.

Lastly, it appears that the rest of the residents want you present - his demand seems to want to subordinate everyone's needs to his. That is not the concept behind a "reasonable accommodation." It comes from the landlord to the requestor - not from the residents. Granting him what he wants/needs by taking minutes and allowing the proxy, reaches a far better balance for everyone involved. The residents have open meetings and he has access through the minutes and his proxy.