New York bill would void HOA turf mandates — and Hochul vetoed it once already
New York bill would void HOA turf mandates — and Hochul vetoed it once already
2026-09-15 · New York · Legislation · Pending — not yet law
A bill that would strip New York homeowners associations of the power to require turf lawns has passed both houses of the Legislature — and it is on its way to a Governor who vetoed the identical measure eleven months ago. The Low Impact Landscaping Rights Act, A10102, cleared the Assembly 93–48 on March 30, 2026 and the Senate 39–22 on June 3, 2026. As of today it has not been delivered to the Governor, and it is not law.1
The delay is ordinary New York mechanics rather than neglect: the Legislature controls when a passed bill is physically delivered, and routinely holds bills into the autumn. The same bill family shows how that plays out. The 2025 version, A1890, passed the Assembly 97–47 and the Senate 37–22, was delivered to the Governor on October 9, 2025, and was vetoed on October 16, 2025. The Assembly tabled the veto the next day; no override vote was taken.2
What the veto memorandum actually said
Veto Message No. 37 is three sentences of reasoning, and the middle one is the most consequential sentence in New York homeowners association law this session:
“This bill would prevent homeowners associations (HOAs) from prohibiting low-impact landscaping, including pollinator gardens, rain gardens, and habitat or natural gardens.
While I recognize the potential benefits of low-impact landscaping, this bill would unduly encroach on private agreements between property owners.
Therefore, I am constrained to veto this bill.”3
The objection is not drafting, not cost, not feasibility. It is a principle: overriding recorded covenants intrudes on private contract. That is a much harder thing for a legislature to answer than a technical defect, and it applies to the 2026 version's central provision just as squarely — because the 2026 bill still declares an offending covenant “void as contrary to public policy.”
A1890 was, as far as we can establish, the only bill in either session that the Governor vetoed expressly because it regulated homeowners associations. Of 141 policy vetoes in 2025, three were Real Property Law bills, and this was the only one about HOAs.
What the bill would actually do
A10102 adds a new Article 9-F to the Real Property Law. The operative prohibition is short and unusually blunt for New York, which has no general homeowners association statute at all:
“A homeowners' association shall not adopt or enforce any rules or regulations that would effectively prohibit, or impose unreasonable limitations on, the installation or maintenance of low impact landscaping. A restriction on use which effectively prohibits the installation or maintenance of low impact landscaping shall be unenforceable and shall be void as contrary to public policy.”4
“Restriction on use” is defined to reach a covenant in “a deed,” “a contract,” “the by-laws of a homeowners' association,” “any rules or regulations adopted by a homeowners' association,” “a security agreement,” or “any other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of, or any interest in, real property.” Recorded declarations are captured. “Low impact landscaping” means pollinator gardens, rain gardens, habitat gardens, or “natural gardening that uses plants native to the state of New York.”
What changed since the veto
Two things. The bill moved from Article 9-E to Article 9-F, and — the substantive change — it now carries an express list of grounds an association may still enforce, plus a written-reasons duty on denials.
The four grounds a board keeps
Subdivision 3 is the new material, and it is the answer to the 2025 veto. Notwithstanding the prohibition, an association may still forbid low impact landscaping that is:
“(a) located on property owned by the homeowners' association or that is located on property owned in common by the members of the homeowners' association; (b) not reasonably maintained by the homeowner; or (c) not designed within reasonable expectations regarding public safety, and regarding encroachment on common space and neighboring properties.”
Common areas are therefore untouched. A neglected meadow can still be cited. Safety and encroachment survive as grounds. What does not survive is aesthetic uniformity standing alone — and that is what most turf mandates are.
Architectural review committees get a new written-reasons duty
Subdivision 4 is the provision that changes day-to-day practice even for associations that would never have banned a rain garden:
“Any denial of a homeowner's installation of low impact landscaping by a homeowners' association shall include a detailed description of the exact basis for rejection in writing with specific examples of such homeowners' association's concerns, if applicable.”
A one-line “does not conform to community standards” denial would not comply. Boards that run an architectural review process on a standard-form denial letter would need to rewrite the template and brief the committee that subdivisions 3(a)–(c) are the only available grounds.
Sixty days, and an unresolved scope question
The effective-date clause reads: “This act shall take effect on the sixtieth day after it shall have become a law.” If it is signed in, say, November, associations have until roughly January to audit their governing documents for turf mandates, approved-plant lists, percentage-of-lot caps and mandatory irrigation.
The phrase doing the most undefined work is “unreasonable limitations.” A mandatory turf strip, a cap on the share of a front lot that may be planted, or a closed list of approved species could each be attacked under it. There is no New York case law, because there is no statute yet.
A second, more basic question is genuinely open: the bill reaches “homeowners' associations” and never defines the term. It never mentions condominiums or cooperatives. Whether an unincorporated association, a condominium with detached units, or a co-op is bound is unresolved on the face of the text. Our New York governing statute page covers why that gap matters so much in a state with no common-interest-community act.
Where the votes came from
The Senate 39–22 split was party-line: all 22 nays were Republicans. The Assembly 93–48 crossed party lines in both directions. The sponsor's own memorandum ties the bill explicitly to New York's existing association-restriction statutes, stating that it “is intended to be consistent with existing state law limiting unreasonable restrictions by homeowners associations on the installation and use of solar power systems and electric vehicle charging stations, and to extend similar protections to homeowners seeking to install and maintain beneficial low impact landscaping.”5 Those are Real Property Law Article 9-E § 342 for solar and § 343 for EV charging.
What to watch
The single event that changes this story is the appearance of “delivered to governor” in the bill's action log. Based on the verified 2025 pattern in this same bill family, expect delivery between roughly October and the end of December 2026, followed by a 30-day decision clock. Until then, a board that receives a pollinator-garden application is governed by its declaration and nothing else.
Related New York HOA Topics
- A10102, New York State Senate bill page — status, Senate roll call 39-22-1-1, and full text ↩
- A1890 (2025) — “Vetoed by Governor,” veto memorandum 37, October 16, 2025 ↩
- Veto Message No. 37 of 2025, October 16, 2025 — New York Legislative Retrieval System (LBDC) veto memoranda index ↩
- A10102 full text, actions and sponsor’s memorandum, New York State Assembly ↩
- Statement by Assemblymember Glick on the gubernatorial veto of A.1890, October 17, 2025 ↩
Stay on top of New York HOA law
Every week: new New York legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.