Board/ACC Conflict of Interest

A homeowner of our small <20 home subdivision submitted a request to the ACC to build a fence along both neighboring sides of the property. One neighbor sent a letter to the Board suggesting that it was against the rules and used the lawyer word in his letter. The Board and the ACC subsequently all quit. A meeting was held and an new Board was elected, and no one was willing to serve on the ACC. The Board is now made up of the submitter, and the two neighbors. All have a personal interest in the issue. Per our CC&Rs the duties of the ACC fall on the Board if none are appointed. There is currently no Conflict of Interest rule or any definition or discussion in the CC&Rs or ByLaws.

Is it a conflict of interest for the current Board to decide?
If so, what do we do?

First, seek emergency doses of testosterone cause it sounds like you have a bunch of little girly-men in your association.

Does Colorado law address conflict-of-interest in its non-profit corporation laws? Some states would prohibit a director from voting on the issue. In Arizona, a director who has a conflict of interest must state that he has a conflict but they may vote on the issue anyway! Go figure.

If association approval is required and all board members have a conflict of interest that prevents them from voting on the issue then the fence will not be approved. The requester can do nothing, he can build the fence without approval and suffer the consequences, or he could seek approval from the courts.

Am I reading this correctly? One neighbor's letter drove all members off the BOD and ACC?

If as I read it ture, two comments:

1 What a bunch of pussies on the BOD and ACC.

2. Say hello to fences.

Yes, much of our BOD and ACC was without testosterone.

Our rules for fences state that they must be less than 6' (4' was requested). They also state that the fence cannot interfere with the views of any property. All the current property line fences are split rail. The proposed fence is solid cedar.

Clayton,

What the individual who wants to build the fence fails to recognize is that any member may enforce the covenants in court. Therefore, if the "no fences" wording is a covenant, the Board has no authority to overturn the covenant.

What the Board fails to recognize is that the Board faces potential legal action for breach of contract from the challenger if they approve the fence in violation of the covenants. Additionally, if the individual who wants the fence installs it, based on the ruling from the Association, and is forced to take it down, the Association could face potential legal action from that individual for damages (because the Association should have never authorized the fence in the first place).

What the membership fails to recognize is that they will have to pay their share of the legal bills.

Now if the "no fence" wording is a guideline vs. a covenant, that is a different issue.

Is the no fence wording a covenant or a guideline?

I find it difficult to believe that the entire board and architectural committee would resign based solely on what is in this posting. Therefore, I believe that there is a lot more to this issue than we are being informed of.