Declaration of Restrictions

Paragraph '5' in our Deed of Restrictions reads:
Fences shall not be erected or maintained unless required by township or government agencies in conjunction with an in-ground swimming pool. Fences may not exceed more than (6')feet in height. No metal or electrified fencing is permitted. The forgoing not withstanding, it is understood that underground electronic pet fence containment systems are permitted. All fence designs must receive prior written approval of the developer or assigns.
That said, here's our problem.
A home owner sought, and received written permission from the developer,(who controls the board), to erect a 'decorative' fence along the back yard of her property, (in a straight line and not enclosing the back yard), inclusive of a arbor in the center. As a result , other home owners complained that the erection of this fence was in violation of the Deed of Restrictions.
Subsequently, the builder sent a letter to all home owners that although written permission had been given, it was done so in error and the owners must abide by the language in the Deed of Restrictions.
At this writing, the fence still remains, (to the consternation of several owners). Our property management represenative,(who's company was hired by the developer), maintains that she has spoken with several attorneys concerning this issue, all of whom contend that since the "fence" does not enclose her backyard, it does not fit the true definition of a "fence" and does not violate the Deed of Restrictions.
Still, some residents feel the language of Paragraph 5 is explicit in that it does not grant an exception to decorative fences as it does for fences surrounding swimming pools or containment of pets and does therefor constitute a violation of the Deed of Rrestrictions.
Additionally, the developer,(ie. controller of the Board) is remaining mute throughout this controversy and the question is being raised as to what recourse do the home owners, ( if they are right, and who collectively feel the Deed of Restrictions has been violated), have, to seek redress under the Pennsylvania Planned Community Act.
Any insight or expertise in advising or pointing us toward a possible clarification in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.
Tom

ThomasC2 - You could always tell the owner to install a pool and finish off the fence so it's in compliance. Kidding aside, the developer is back peddling and either needs to pay for the yard to be restored so it's in compliance or amend the cc&r's so everyone is allowed the same courtesy. Does the fence and arbor look nice?

Agreed. However, the developer cannot grant exemptions that go against the language in the Deed of Restrictions. This must be done by due process requiring an amendment voted upon by a majority of owners.

There has been some discussion that the developer offered to remove the fence and return the property to its original state, (all at his expense), but the owners refuse to permit him to do so since it was they who originally granted written permission.

I agree. Unless there was fraud on the homeowner's part or the modification did not meet the description of the original request and approval.

We had someone put up something of a similar nature. It was called a "landscape feature".

Gloria,
Your point, as well as Roger's, Harold's and Tracy's is well taken, but short of hiring an attorney, how can we receive offical clarification that you are correct? From the township?, Recorder of Deeds? Can you please suggest someone?
Additionally, if you are all correct, does it now stand to follow that a precident has been established and other like fences, (aka landscape features)can now be erected without written permission?

I agree with Michele, except it is usually called a variance. However, this does mean anyone else has the right to not comply with the CC&Rs.