Architectural Control Committee

Nigel,

Typically, CC&Rs specify that any exterior changes require prior approval from the Association (Board or Committee). Do your CC&Rs have this requirement?

Expecting it does, did you request and receive approval prior to installing the fountain?

If you received prior approval, simply provide a copy of it.

If you did not request or if you did not receive prior approval, then you are likely in violation of the covenants for failure to obtain the approval (and it won't matter what rules were adopted).

There is nothing in the CCRs that require prior approval for exterior changes. The CCR states that the objective of the ACC is to encourage the construction of dwellings or (sic) superior architectural design, quality, proper size and overall compatibility with the conceptual plat. The only element remotely close to a prior approval requirement is that No dwellings shall be erected, constructed, or altered on any lot until construction plans and specifications have been submitted to and approved in writing by the ACC.

The current HOA board consists of two members, one having apparently resigned a few months ago. I have no idea who they appointed to the ACC or if they just took it on themselves. I suspect that the document they enacted is probably boiler plate supplied by the management company.

I fully understand and agree with community standards, and the guidelines are not that onerous. The problem that I have with this whole deal is that the guidelines were enacted without any input from the community, they are dated Sep 24, 2013 and enacted in February of this year. We had our annual HOA meeting in October of 2013 and I don't recall anything being mentioned about enacting new guidelines.

To be very honest, it isn't worth the time and trouble and bother to fight this, but I really think that the Board needs to be sent a message that enacting rules that affect the 231 homeowners in this subdivision without any notice or commentary process is really unacceptable. There's just a right way to do things and there have to be checks and balances. What is to stop a new board from declaring the previously enacted guidelines null and void, or deciding to require all coach lights installed on the exterior of houses be on at dusk?

The board's two year term is up this coming October and I'm seriously thinking of throwing my hat into the ring.

Meanwhile, I'm going to be writing a polite letter requesting to know the decision making process that went into the enactment of the guidelines, whether any consideration was made to have input from the 231 households, and if not - why not. Whether any consideration was undertaken to grandfather those who were not in compliance, if not - why not.

I understand that being a board member is a thankless job, and that participation in HOA meetings is probably around 15-20 percent of homeowners, but I really believe that there needs to be more openness - things should not just be done because they can be done (enacting regs).

Anyway - thanks for the input and knowledge.

I've attached a photo of my offending fountain

Nigel, I think you are well within your rights to ask how the guidelines came to be, in a polite, business-like, non confrontational fashion. While I agree with Tim's statement, the paraphrased language you provided is precisely why the guidelines were developed and implemented.

I could not agree with you more regarding the very poor performance of the board in this matter. I would also question if the management company provided guidance to the board, such as suggesting that a committee of property owners be convened to review the proposed guidelines. If the MC made the suggestion and it was rejected, shame on the board. If the MC did not make the suggestion, shame on both. Using boiler plate as a beginning point is fine, writing such a document from scratch is a monumental project.

I encourage you to get involved. For starters, in a community of 231 homes, the board should probably consist of three or five members, not just two. What do your Governing Documents say?

We are having the same issue. We have an ARC that is made up of the President of the board - which we found out last night - before that they would not tell us. And then we found out she "appointed" a new resident who moved into a house one month ago onto the committee. So, there are only two people on the ARC who are making eroneous decisions about our neighborhood.

We are just not sure what to do. A couple came to the meeting last night to try and work out the paint color issue, and they were rudely dismissed and told that they did not "like" the color. The problem we see is the Covenents say earth tones, which is what was painted on the house technically, but the President does not like gray tones. What rights do we have as homeowners?

This HOA association is really being run by a management company who simply stated in the meeting (to our horror) that they are fining people for more money and said they will not apologize for it.

HELP!!!

The whole problem revolves around interpretation of what is contained in the governing documents. For example our original governing document states the following : "No dwellings shall be erected, constructed, or altered on any lot until construction plans and specifications have been submitted to and approved in writing by the ACC"

What exactly does that mean? Can it be interpreted that no fountains may be installed in a front yard? While some here might say that it does mean that, I'd differ because it talks about "dwellings" which to my mind means a structure. If you look at the original CC and R it states the purpose of the ACC which is to "encourage the construction of dwellings or superior architectural design, quality, proper size, and overall compatibility with the conceptual plat". The installation of a fountain prior to the issuance of new guidelines not not alter the dwelling.

In my case, the new guidelines state that fountains in front yards are permitted with the prior written approval of the ACC as long as they do not exceed 4 feet in height. My fountain is 44 inches tall. My argument is that the fountain was not prohibited by the original documents I received at closing.

The whole problem is one of economy. Is the HOA being unreasonable, and are they in fact wrong when they attempt to have a homeowner remove something that was not previously prohibited, and even so if the fountain meets the requirements contained in the new guidelines what is the problem?

While the management company does run the day to day operations, they are employees of the HOA and to my mind should do nothing without the approval of the Board of Directors.

Is the HOA willing to spend money for litigation? Can the "offending" homeowner afford the cost of litigation? Is it really worth the bother?

What I'm saying is that it may be a total waste of time to fight them - and the remedy is to make the necessary changes to the board when their terms of office expire.

In the case of the Board of my HOA - the governing documents call for the board to appoint a nominating committee to nominate individuals to run for election to the board, the nominating committee can consist of board members. So in a conspiracy minded world - the Board of Directors can stay in office forever. The out is that a majority of the HOA members may remove directors and also may change the governing documents.

Here's what I wrote to the management company yesterday.

The fountain which is the subject of the alleged violation is actually fully compliant with the provisions contained in Section 11 of the Architectural Control Guidelines Rules and Regulations dated September 24, 2013 in that it is 44 inches tall and does not exceed the maximum 4 feet in height, is natural in color, and is maintained in new condition.

I note that Section 11 of the Architectural Control Guidelines Rules and Regulations dated September 24, 2013 state the following: Items such as fountains, statuary, etc, are permissible with prior written approval by the ARC.

Considering the fact that the 44 inch tall decorative fountain was installed shortly after we purchased the residence in March 2010, and has been continuously in that location, I find it difficult to comprehend exactly how we would be able to obtain “prior written approval” from the ARC for something that was not required until February of this year.

It is noted, that the above referenced Architectural Control Guidelines Rules and Regulations also included the statement:

“To supersede all other previously recorded guidelines *Governing Pearland Stonebridge sections 1 & 2”

The original Subdivision Restrictive Covenants dated May 22, 2008 which we received at closing contain the only recorded guidelines I am aware of in Article II of that document. If there were in fact any previously recorded guidelines other than the ones I have delineated above, would you kindly advise where I can obtain a copy.

You should be advised that while we fully intend to comply with the recently published guidelines by the date specified in your letter dated August 18, 2014, we would like to make some comments and observations regarding the Architectural Control Guidelines Rules and Regulations dated September 24, 2013.

1. Would you kindly provide information regarding the procedures that were accomplished by either yourselves or the HOA board prior to the enactment of the guidelines.

a. Who decided that guidelines more restrictive than those contained in the original CC and R’s were necessary, was this done at a board meeting or was it prompted by the management company.
b. Who wrote the guidelines, was there any discussion as to what should be contained in the guidelines, or are the guidelines merely “boiler plate” provided by the management company.
c. What input, if any did the Architectural Control Committee have in drawing up the guidelines.
d. Is the Architectural Control Committee comprised of anyone other than the members of the Pearland Stonebridge HOA board.
e. If the Architectural Control Committee only consists of HOA board members, why did the board not reach out to the community for volunteers to serve on the board
f. Prior to the establishment of the guidelines, was any consideration taken into account to have the guidelines submitted to the voting membership of the Pearland Stonebridge Home Owners Association for comment? If the answer is yes, what steps were taken to allow the voting membership to comment? If the answer is no, what was the reasoning for adopting the guidelines unilaterally without community input.
g. Prior to the enactment of the guidelines, was there any discussion as to how to treat association members who were in compliance with the original restrictions, but would be not in compliance with the adoption of the new guidelines. Was any exemption (grandfathering) contemplated. If not –why not.
h. There are a number of perceived violations of the guidelines in the community, numbers painted on curb, less than two trees in front of residence, etc. What steps does the association contemplate taking to bring the violations into compliance – have any variances been granted?

2. Board or Directors, Nominating Committee, and Architectural Control Committee
a. Would you kindly advise me the names of the individuals who are currently members of the Board of Directors, Nominating Committee, and Architectural Control Committee along with any other committees established by the Pearland Stonebridge Homeowners Association.
b. I understand that a member of the Board of Directors recently resigned his position, has the board appointed a replacement as required by Article IV, Section 3 of the HOA By Laws?
c. I understand that the current term of the Pearland Stonebridge Homeowners Association Board Members expires this year. Please advise what steps I need to take in order to be considered for election to the board at the next annual general meeting.

I have attached a photograph of the decorative fountain which has been installed in my front yard for the past 4 years. I would appreciate knowing specifically how the fountain violates the “aesthetic integrity” of the community.

In closing, I have no real problems with the published guidelines other than the fact that I believe there should have been more transparency and community input prior to their enactment.

Since you are from Texas, you are in luck. You stated that your fountain has been in place for 4 years. The statute of limitations period to bring a lawsuit to enforce a restrictive covenant is 4 years from the date you erected the fountain unless you concealed the fountain. However, since the fountain is in your front yard this would be a hard one to prove.

Tex Civ Prac & Rem Code 16.051. Buzbe v Castlewood Civic Club.