Change to original plans controversy

We have a neighbor who is mid-way into building his family's dream home of about 7,000 sf. The homeowner and his builder have had some major problems communicating with and thus filing the proper forms within the proper timeframe with the Architectural Control Committee. The original house plan had been approved by the ACC months and months ago with the exception of a copper front porch roof. The homeowners decided that if they couldn't have the copper front porch roof, they didn't want the copper framed windows that were in the original plan. The owner thought that the builder had followed protocol and had received approval for this change. The builder had submitted the change form but after he had actually installed the black windows. Also,several changes had been made to the interior of the house causing some changes to become necessary to the exterior of the house. The change requests which were supposed to be approved prior to any changes to the exterior of the house had been submitted but again, a little late (two days). One of the changes was that one of the two fireplaces had been removed. Another of the changes was that the master bedroom/bathroom had been reconfigured so that a window that had been originally approved had to be removed or it would have been in the shower area. Now, here's where the big problem arrives:
- The ACC has said that the black windows must be removed and replaced with copper ones. (If the homeowners want, they can then resubmit the change to black windows and it will be approved.)
- The ACC has said that the rock chimney must be on the roof, regardless of the fact that there is not a fireplace beneath it.
- The ACC has said that the homeowners had to put a window in the shower area but that it could be a dormer-style, over-head type of window or a very narrow window with etched (or other non-see through)glass along the side.

The ACC used the term, "we'll give them this one" in regard to the window placement in the shower area but has said over and over that the "rules are the rules and absolutely no change can be made to the exterior of a home without receiving prior approval". These two terms are absolute opposites so if they can "give one to them", it stands to reason that they can give them another. The only problem is that the change orders were submitted late. In a perfect world, no one would make mistakes but we all know that we don't live in a perfect world.

This home will look beautiful with or without copper windows, a rock chimney or a window. My husband and I live on the other end of the development, do not know the homeowners personally and have no other reason to speak out against this injustice ...except that it seems to be an injustice. If the homeowners are made to adhere to these three decisions (of which two obide by the "rules" and one does not), they will be forced to pay out an additional $30,000 plus. It seems that if the ACC has the right to "give them one" why can't they give them the other two. Our community is in a turmoil because of the strict interpretation of the ACC without any recourse for a mistake, an error between builder and homeowner or just bad timing. What do you think?

I agree with Michelle. If these people get an engineer to submit objections to the changes that the ARC wants, how will you fight them. It will be a very costly venture just to prove the ARC wants the power to approve or disapprove something. This must be one savvy ARC. If the changes will cost the homeowners considerable money you may have a battle on your hands.

Do your documents really say that if a plan is submitted with a fireplace and chimney and the plans are changed the chimney has to stay? Or are the just holding their ground because they made this decision and the are not ready to give up. What justification does the ARC have for not approving these items. Everything is flexible, especially with a new home build. Once the home is completed and the landscaping is done then the ARC can hold their ground (LOL) with any changes the homeowner may want to make to a finished home. If these changes do not detract from the overall community and the integrity you want to project, why not leave it.

I have worked with a few ARC committees before turnover and I found them to be very similar to yours. There is no real documentation that goes to custom built homes. They are singular and individual in nature and cannot be classified as the norm, so how can the ARC come up with rules about how they should look.

Thank you for such prompt responses to my inquiry. The President of our HOA is the developer - who is also a builder. Until the new ACC into place, both he and his wife were on the HOA board as well as being two of the three members of the ACC. His wife is now one member of the three member ACC plus he sits in on every meeting as an "architectural consultant). Needless to say, they have had a fairly easy run of having their opinions become the rule around here. Recently, a few of us (we just completed construction of our home) have started to question whether or not they have occasionally bent the rules when they chose to.

Here's an example of how they interpret the rules. When the ACC was inspecting our home, one of them noticed that the dormers above the garage were not completely shingled but were only shingled on the top portion with the bottom portion covered with siding. That design matched all of the other dormers on our house but evidently, the architect had made a mistake on his drawings - which had been submitted and approved by the ACC. The ACC members all agreed that the way in which the dormers were done were better looking than on "the original plans" and said that they had, in fact, made a mistake in approving the shingle-covered dormers. They then said, "but, sorry, but you'll have to shingle the dormers to match the approved plans". We all agreed that they would not look good that way, but according to them "you have no choice, you mush comply with the original plans - with no exceptions". With a "wink and a nod" to the ACC, it was decided that we would carefully just tack the shingles up, submit a change order, have it approved and then carefully take the shingles down leaving little evidence that they were even there. We knew that this was "cheating" but we decided at that time that we would comply (in this special way)but would start a neighborhood discussion about the irrational, costly and unreasonable way in which things were being handled.

As far as the ACC wanting to make these homeowners put up a rock chimney where there is no fireplace below - that's exactly what they are saying has to be done. Their comment is that it's an architectural feature that will add to the beauty of the neighborhood. My feeling is that the entire house when completed will be an asset to our neighborhood and no one will even know that a chimney was originally supposed to be there. The ACC keeps coming back to "it's the rule - without prior approval any changes made must be reversed".

It appears that they allowed us to "cheat" and have allowed these homeowners to change the location and shape of a window - both of which go completely against their "it's the rule" stance. But they are holding strong to that "it's the rule" when it comes to the chimney and the copper windows. Do any of you think that they have the right to pick and choose when they want to put that "rule stuff" into play?

We are going to attend a board meeting on Monday night and hopefully we can get a real discussion going. I have not told any of our neighbors about the ACC giving us permission to "cheat" on our violation...should I spill the beans at the meeting and let them do the explaining?
Thanks all for your help.

Wow! This situation sounds like a nightmare for both the property owner building that house and the HOA. If this goes the way of the courts it's going to cost so much money...but it might be less expensive to litigate than replace the copper.. Does the ARC have a grudge against this owner?
MaryN

DianeG: ..."The homeowner and his builder have had some major problems communicating with and thus filing the proper forms within the proper timeframe with the Architectural Control Committee. The original house plan had been approved by the ACC months and months ago with the exception of a copper front porch roof."

Some questions:
- did the builder/owner follow the exact process the documents dictate?
- do the documents state that the Architectural Committee approves or denies the plan and not the Board?
- do the documents dictate a time frame to follow
- was a form submitted for the copper porch roof

If the documents do not dictate a specific process to follow with a specific time frame, then this homeowner does have cause to 'stick to their guns'.
But, if there is a process and it was not followed, IMO, they are going to have an expensive fight on their hands.

Though the Board is willing to 'give them a window by the shower' it should not be taken to mean that they should 'give in' on everything else. Obviously, your community has decided there are esthetic rules which must be followed to maintain a certain up-scale look and all should appreciate and strive to uphold it. That's why you all bought there and signed on the dotted line.

The problems always arise in the interpretation of "how-to accomplish what we bought into...."