AdamL1 (UnitedStates)
Posts: 559
Posts: 559
Posted:
OK, so I figure I'd follow up on this and ask some more questions to the crowd wisdom.
Background:
- CCR's say: "no insects unless it is not a nuisance."
- CCR's define nuisance as sights, smells, sounds, and references city code as a catchall for anything else.
- City Code defines nuisance and also has a section discussing code compliance for suburban beekeeping.
- City Code Officer quoted: "whatever someone thinks about hazards or nuisances is irrelevant. If you are compliant to code, then there is no nuisance."
In Summary: If it is a nuisance, then you cannot have them. It's not a nuisance, no harm no foul. (this is basic pre-law logic, not complicated).
So anyway, at the annual meeting, after 3 months of threats by the BoD (no hearing, no response for a meeting, no chance to hold discussion, just threats and personal interpretations of the CCR's), the board put on the meeting agenda: Amendment to Allow Beekeeping. In addition, they fomented a core group of "concerned citizens" and presented a 1-sided fear campaign, a 1-sided story of me blatantly violating CCR's, and a refusal to ask permission. The whole thing quickly devolved into a chaotic mess with many people standing up asking "what the heck are we even talking about? we can't amend anything here in an annual meeting like this." There was a motion to table the whole thing for a later dedicated board meeting and conversation, but then an amendment to the motion to say "yea, and he has to get rid of the bees." it was chaotic and mob-rule, with the BoD letting the whole thing continue. I have yet to see the minutes but I assume it will be quite 1-sided.
Anyway, so for Amendments, we all know this, these need majority votes of the entire membership, not a chaotic board meeting with no vote counts. But I guess some of my questions are:
1. this was completely improper, right? Even if we did have critical mass there to vote on an amendment, there was not draft writing of the proposed amendment, no opportunity to discuss both sides, and then of course the entire concept of 'amending to allow" an activity that is already not a restricted activity in the first place.
2. It's completely improper to vote to force someone to do something that is so clearly and hotly contested, correct?
To top things off, despite however you may feel about your definition of nuisance, the CCR's are the CCR's. They say explicity what is not allowed, and in this case, the law is on my side. I found another section in the CCR's that discuss amendments and says any future amendments cannot restrict anything that was previously allowed.
So I guess I'm looking for any thoughts on this? How to deal with a mob-mentality, feelings about CCR's instead of the actual sentences, and this amendment section saying that they can't restrict something that was previously allowed? Again, I've been trying to get a normal conversation with the concerned party to discuss and see what their concerns are and how we could add rules to help 'regulate' this activity.
--------------------------------
Section 13.4.3, Effect of Amendment
Any amendment of this Master
Declaration approved in the manner specified above shall be binding on and
effective as to all Owners and their respective properties notwithstanding that
such Owners may not have voted for or consented to such amendment. Such
amendments may add to and increase the covenants, conditions, restrictions
and easements applicable to the Property but shall not prohibit or
unreasonably interfere with the allowed uses of such Ownerâs property which
existed prior to the said amendment.
-------------------------
Background:
- CCR's say: "no insects unless it is not a nuisance."
- CCR's define nuisance as sights, smells, sounds, and references city code as a catchall for anything else.
- City Code defines nuisance and also has a section discussing code compliance for suburban beekeeping.
- City Code Officer quoted: "whatever someone thinks about hazards or nuisances is irrelevant. If you are compliant to code, then there is no nuisance."
In Summary: If it is a nuisance, then you cannot have them. It's not a nuisance, no harm no foul. (this is basic pre-law logic, not complicated).
So anyway, at the annual meeting, after 3 months of threats by the BoD (no hearing, no response for a meeting, no chance to hold discussion, just threats and personal interpretations of the CCR's), the board put on the meeting agenda: Amendment to Allow Beekeeping. In addition, they fomented a core group of "concerned citizens" and presented a 1-sided fear campaign, a 1-sided story of me blatantly violating CCR's, and a refusal to ask permission. The whole thing quickly devolved into a chaotic mess with many people standing up asking "what the heck are we even talking about? we can't amend anything here in an annual meeting like this." There was a motion to table the whole thing for a later dedicated board meeting and conversation, but then an amendment to the motion to say "yea, and he has to get rid of the bees." it was chaotic and mob-rule, with the BoD letting the whole thing continue. I have yet to see the minutes but I assume it will be quite 1-sided.
Anyway, so for Amendments, we all know this, these need majority votes of the entire membership, not a chaotic board meeting with no vote counts. But I guess some of my questions are:
1. this was completely improper, right? Even if we did have critical mass there to vote on an amendment, there was not draft writing of the proposed amendment, no opportunity to discuss both sides, and then of course the entire concept of 'amending to allow" an activity that is already not a restricted activity in the first place.
2. It's completely improper to vote to force someone to do something that is so clearly and hotly contested, correct?
To top things off, despite however you may feel about your definition of nuisance, the CCR's are the CCR's. They say explicity what is not allowed, and in this case, the law is on my side. I found another section in the CCR's that discuss amendments and says any future amendments cannot restrict anything that was previously allowed.
So I guess I'm looking for any thoughts on this? How to deal with a mob-mentality, feelings about CCR's instead of the actual sentences, and this amendment section saying that they can't restrict something that was previously allowed? Again, I've been trying to get a normal conversation with the concerned party to discuss and see what their concerns are and how we could add rules to help 'regulate' this activity.
--------------------------------
Section 13.4.3, Effect of Amendment
Any amendment of this Master
Declaration approved in the manner specified above shall be binding on and
effective as to all Owners and their respective properties notwithstanding that
such Owners may not have voted for or consented to such amendment. Such
amendments may add to and increase the covenants, conditions, restrictions
and easements applicable to the Property but shall not prohibit or
unreasonably interfere with the allowed uses of such Ownerâs property which
existed prior to the said amendment.
-------------------------