ARC committee screwed up…now the homeowner demands the new committee also not follow the rules!

The previous ARC committee lead, by himself, gave approval for a 20 x 20 x 12 section of fence to a homeowner at 6’ tall. Our CCRs clearly state perimeter fences are only 4’ tall. Homeowner erected 6’ tall and now has submitted another ARC because his fence panels are 8’ wide and he wants to extend the fence 4 additional feet on either side. We have a new ARC committee, because the previous one couldn’t be bothered to learn their CCRs, and now this new committee DENIED his request for more 6’ fencing. The board had tried to disallow the 6’ fence but the guy got an attorney…we had to get one, and his has become ugly and costly for both sides. He demanded a “hearing before the board” to discuss his “ denied ARC.” I’ve asked the board to listen, not argue or engage because the homeowner is a screaming, name-calling bully. After he speaks and we listen, I intend for us to adjourn and meet privately and make a determination which will be sent through him via the PM. Just because one committee broke the rules doesn’t mean the next committee must break the rules, right? He’s all ready erected 6’ posts every eight feet all around his property and told the ARC committee that “as soon as ya’ll leave I’m putting up 6’ fences.”
Thoughts?

First, why isn't the HOA attorney responding to your concerns above?

Second, the Board should formally communicate to the owner that he is not to install fences violating the covenants. Send this communication certified mail, return receipt requested.

Third, the Board should consider paying for replacement of any fence (of this owner's) violating the covenants but that was approved (by mistake) by its ARC.

Fourth, less drama is better. Never use exclamation marks in communications.

Brett

While I do not like his bullying tactics and I personally might turn him down for such, there could be something to say for letting him extend the once approved 6 foot fencing out some. Like it or not, the ARC id approve the 6 foot fencing.

Post the wording of the CCR’s because perimeter fences may only apply to the front.

Another part of the ccr’s may override the height especially if it relates to county law. It maybe at that time county law may limit to 4 but now it’s no longer the case.

4 ft is so short, always been 6 and anything more requires a county permit.

I am revising my advice. What has arisen comes up here a lot: A previous board (or agent of the Board, like the ARC) did xyz. xyz violates the covenants. A new board is desirous of enforcing all the covenants to the best of its ability. The HOA attorney available for consultation. The HOA attorney bills lot of money per hour. The HOA wants to avoid litigation, especially since there is no choice here that seems to be a slam dunk. Whatever decision the board makes in the short run puts the HOA at risk of litigation from either (1) the owner with the 6-foot fence; or (2) owners who were not allowed 6-foot fences in the past or who maybe want a 6-foot fence going forward. All directors put their King Solomon hats on. If I were on the board with pretenses of being Solomon, and if the county allows 6 foot fences, then I would move to approve the guy's 6-foot fence. I would move to start considering a re-write and amendment of the covenants. Anyone else applying for a 6-foot fence would have the fence approved.

Those who were told in the past that they could have only a four-foot fence: Tell them the truth about what happened. Tell them that fences do not last forever and that they can certainly replace their fence at the end of its life and put in a 6-foot fence.

Respond to anyone really griping about the situation: Sir (Ma'am), I give up 25 hours a week to this board and HOA. It's mostly conflict. I am not paid anything. Unless you are willing to serve on the board, and meant with neighborly respect, it's hard for me to take your criticism seriously.

One goes with the choice that will be hoped to cause the least damage to the HOA.

In many instances, Board members are also not elected by residents, so why should they have final say?

We've had to appoint numerous board members because not enough people wanted to run to fill out the board.

According to our Covenants, all Board members share the same legal responsibilities whether elected or appointed. The committee volunteers are not held to any standard by state law or our governing documents, only Board members.