What in the world does this mean...Covenant question

I sure wish they'd write these things so the common folk could understand'em!!

But here's what I think the first one means:

The approval or consent of the Architectural Review Committee
to any application for architectural approval shall not be considered to be a waiver of any right
to withhold or deny approval or consent
to any application or other matters where approval or consent may be needed later or in addition to the original application.

Now, if I get this right - this does not apply to an after-the-fact situation. The homeowner did not approach the committee for approval for anything, so he is in violation of your roofing policies.

Susan...thanks for the info.

Mary...if thinking the Board should be consistent makes me foolish then I guess I am a fool. The reason I say this is that in the past the Board has fined the crap out of other homeowners that have broken the rules regarding roofing and paint...by not being consistent they are setting a very bad precedence.

The home in question knew they had to submit a request to re-shingle the roof because a couple of months before they submitted a request to paint there home and on that same form it talks about roofing.

What bothers me is when homeowners don't follow the rules and then act surprised when they get a violation letter and plead ignorance.

As far as the appeal process goes...there is nothing to appeal because they never filled out a request form. If the Board decided to let this slide I sure hope they are prepared to handle the repercussions that will come from other homeowners that had to pay fines in the past for similair violations.

And finally...are you one of those foolish people that would be OK with their neighbor painting there home some hideously odd color and claiming they did not know they had to file a paint request first?

Yeah...the foolish part pissed me off when Mary said it, I guess I should not stoop to her level.

I agree, a violation is a violation and the polies need to be enforced and if they are not what good is to live in a covenant controlled neighborhood?

No they are not and worse they are not being consistent.

We currently have 4 homes that have replaced the shingles on there homes, 3 of them used a color that is on the silver side and 1 used green. The only color that is allowed is medium-grey.

Although the homeowners with the silver-ish roofs are not too bad, they, along with the green roof owners are getting fined $100 every two weeks.

The home with the green roof installed this roof with out an ARC form. When the roof was noticed they were sent a violation letter because they did not fill out an ARC form and because of the color. After a few weeks they sent in an ARC form and it was not approved and seconded by the Board.

A few months prior to this another home put up a new roof and the contractor messed up and used black shingles even though the ARC form and their contract stated medium-grey. The Board and the ARC both agreed that the color looked great but it was the wrong color. The Board started fining them and they were told that regardless of who's fault it was the roof had to be replaced. The Board told them they would either have to work with the contractor or pay for it themselves and sue the contractor. In the end the contractor replaced the roof at there cost, but they could have refused and the homeowner may of had to incur additional costs like paying for the roof and a lawyer.

What bothers me is that this is not fair and they are not acting in a consistent manner. If they grant a waiver/variance to the 4 current homes with roofing problems they are sending out a bad message and opening themselves up to problems from homeowners that have been fined in the past or are currently being fined for other similar violations. And what of the homeowners with the black roof that was replaced, why did they have to be made to jump through all of the hoops they had to go through to get the roof fixed?

I am a firm believer that if you follow the rules in a consistent manner then things should go smoothly. If the Board wants to try to get the required minimum of 75% of the community to vote to change the covenants then I am fine with it but just don't waive a magic wand and forgive a certain few people that are knowingly breaking the rules.

Mitch,

I know you can read anything you like into my message, but I certainly did not call you foolish for wanting (or expecting) the board to be consistent in their decisions. I wondered if you were foolish enough to think that roof color enters into property values. I certainly don't condone inconsistency and allowing things that are taboo. However, sometimes rules need to be changed. That's why I suggested it might be time to review the accepted roof colors. Even though a member may not have followed the required procedure and installed an unacceptable shingle color, the cost of a new roof + the cost to have it removed and replaced should enter into the board's decision. I also think the board should consider imposing a penalty for not acquiring prior approval even if the project undertaken would have been approved by the ARC Comm.

I believe you said the h/o eventually did file an ARC request but it was denied. That's why I asked about an appeal process.

I don't think green shingles are a hideous color so it's not the same as painting your home, say bright purple. Of course what's hideous to you may not be to me! But, because so many members are opting for different color shingles leads me to believe it's time to review the shingle color options. Frankly this should not be in the covenants but rather an ARC rule which can be changed and updated from year to year. If that is not the case then perhaps it's time to amend the covenants.

I'm not condoning inconsistency in the boards decisions. In fact they should be treating each member who installed shingles of the wrong color the same way. And of course I'm a firm believer in following the rules; but sometimes the rules need to be changed.

Mitch,

As you offer more info about this, I can more easily understand where you are coming from and I do certainly agree with you. The board cannot allow something for one member then deny the exact same thing for another. I really do believe the roof colors need to be looked at and perhaps expanded. Same with paint colors. These things change over time; what's "in" one year may be out the next. Our ARC and BOD review the paint colors every few years and expand on them. We have so many color choices and options (use one trim color with a different body color, etc.) that there is no reason to paint an unaccepted color. The only problem ever encountered was with a new home being built. The h/o worked with the BOD to get an acceptable paint color, but when the house was painted it turned out to be an unacceptable color. The member was adamant that it was the same color as accepted, but. . . The ARC and BOD chose to just let it go.

For what it's worth, this is what I think your board should do:

1) revise the acceptable shingle colors
2) adopt a policy to issue a penalty to anyone who makes an improvement w/o first obtaining approval, even if that improvement would have been approved.
3) quit issuing those fines to the members who painted the wrong color. Grandfather them in if their shingle color is different than the new colors adopted.
4) inform the members that a new shingle color policy has been adopted and it will be strictly adhered to. Every h/o with a different shingle color will be grandfathered simply because things were not handled properly in the past -- some people were fined, some were not. Explain the penalty policy and that it will also strictly be adhered to and will apply to any type modification, not just shingles.

I think it's time the BOD got their act together, even if it means letting the members know they've made some mistakes in the past. And the members need to realize that they have some resp. too; mainly to request approval before they embark on a home improvement project or they will be penalized -- heavily. My assn has adopted a penalty of $1,000 and they are not afraid to use it!

Personally, what I want it for the Board to be consistent with their rulings. It's not fair to force the rules on one house and not another.

As far as the green roof goes, I really think it's ugly and stands out like a sore thumb. I would be more open to different colors if they were a little more muted.

I think the Board is going to get themselves in trouble if they excuse the $2000+ fines on this house and allow them to keep the green roof. I can just see other homeowners who in the past were forced to repaint there homes demand a refund of the fines and the cost of the re-do.

Perhaps I'm crazy, but I like to look at the big picture and analyze the possible repercussion before I act on something big like this. Oh yeah...the property manager contacted our lawyer and the lawyer himself said this is a very grey area to get into.

Come the next annual meeting in April, I think the Board is going to have a lynch mob on there hands.