Doorbell cameras

Video and audio are two different legal questions

A doorbell camera does two things at once: it captures video, and, if the audio feature is on, it captures a conversation. Those are not the same legal problem. Video recording of a porch, walkway, or driveway generally raises privacy questions under state law, not the federal wiretap statute. That statute, 18 U.S.C. 2511, governs the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication, meaning a conversation. A silent video feed of someone walking up to a door is not a communication in that sense. Once the microphone is on and it is picking up what people say to each other, the wiretap statute is in play.

This also means OTARD, the federal rule that limits HOA control over small satellite dishes and certain antennas, does not help here. It protects devices that receive an over-the-air signal, not a device that records and transmits one. A board cannot invoke OTARD to justify restricting a doorbell camera, and a resident cannot invoke it to defend one.

The federal consent floor, and why your state might require more

Federal law sets a floor, not a ceiling, for recording a conversation.

"[It is] not unlawful... for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties... has given prior consent."

Source: 18 U.S.C. 2511, Interception and disclosure of communications prohibited, Cornell Legal Information Institute

That is a one-party consent rule: if the homeowner is a party to the conversation, or if any one participant consented, federal law is satisfied. Roughly a dozen states go further and require every participant's consent before a conversation can be recorded, and that requirement varies by state. Check your own state's law, not just this federal floor, before treating an audio-recording doorbell as automatically compliant.

What the board can actually regulate

The recording-consent question is a matter of criminal and civil law, not something a board rule can override in either direction. A rule cannot make an unlawful recording lawful, and it cannot ban a lawful one just because a neighbor finds it uncomfortable. Where the board's authority is real is placement and appearance: whether a camera can face a shared walkway, mount to common-area siding, or has to match an approved bracket, the same kind of question the association already answers through its ordinary architectural-review process for other exterior additions. That authority comes from the Declaration and the association's architectural review procedure, so start there, not with a blanket policy on cameras themselves.