ARC approval

We live in Montana, in a subdivision of 10 home/land owners, 4 of which have homes here.....3 of the 4 homes are lived in all year....the 6 other lots have not been built upon, and owners live out of state. When we built our house 4 years ago we were approved by the "ARC" (which consisted of only the ones we bought the land from) for our house and garage. We only put in the walls for the garage and after one winter we found out where we put the garage was not going to work due to the ice and snow. We then, 2 summers ago put in concrete walls and concrete pad in, approximately 80 feet in front of our house at the "entry" to the sidwalk/lawn of our home, where the grade is flat and makes much more sense. We do have a Architectural Review Committee and did not submit our plans to put the walls or pad in. We also did not have anyone say anything that they disapproved of the "new" site, until just a couple months ago, 2 seasons later. We have recently submitted our building plans to the "ARC" and was denied the 1st time because our plans were not complete enough. We willingly and were happy to supply their requests, giving them exactly what they wanted. When we went back for re-approval, we were again denied because now the roof was too high. They wanted us to change it from an 8/12 pitch to a 6/12 pitch, a foot and a half difference. My husband agreed to think on that. Since then, I got an email this morning saying they had an "ARC" meeting last night, which my husband in on the committe and was not notified of the meeting. They stated they are not going to accept the plans unless we lower the roof 3 feet (that is now a 4/12 pitch, almost flat) This garage is by no means in the way of anyone's view or the such, and they do not have a "reason" for lowering it that much, besides the fact that "one person" does not like it. First question is, can they tell us what our pitch can or can't be for no reason? Nothing of the such is stated in the covenants. For now, they just say "all other buildings shall be 1 story in height", which our proposed garage is. If this were to go to court what is the likely outcome? second question is, since my husband is on the "ARC", should he have been notified of the meeting to participate or was going behind his back the proper way? or since he's part of the committe and it was "our plans", is he out of the picture for the ARC? I would really appreciate some input on this.
Thanks

actually, we didn't just do it because we thought "we could do as we please". The parcels are 20 acres, not right next to eachother. We've got 1 neighbor who we are good friends with, who is actually "chairman" of the ARC. We talked to him about doing this and he said go ahead. Without even thinking about it, considering we haven't even had an HOA that long and nobody who owns property up here even has a house, that's what we did. We put the concrete in when things were still trying to get started.
We are meeting the building codes, and like I said, it's due to one person who doesn't even live here just doesn't like it or "it would make me happier if you would lower the rigde line", no specific reason, is why we got denied. That seems a little ridiculous to me.

Any person who sits on a committee can be removed from the committee by the entity that placed him/her there (presidential appointment, election, etc.)

If you can prove that you had verbal OK to do this by a former chair of the ARC, then you may have a case. Were there regular meetings or minutes that can back you up, or do you just have a verbal OK? How long has this been going on?

The specs for roofs should be in writing somewhere.

(Sounds like your ARC has been loosie-goosie and you took advantage of it.)

and at the time, the ARC was loosie-goosie....

Beth,

You could argue that you received verbal approval or you could go back to that person and have them make a written declaration that the discussion took place and what he understood it to mean. Even if there was not a meeting of the minds (i.e.: the person meant to go ahead and submit the plans and you thought he meant go ahead with the project) it can lay weight to the your side of the issue.

I say this with the expectation that the work has already been completed. If it hasn't been completed, it's a different issue.

Tim

and he (because it's only 1 person who disapproves) had 2 seasons to state he didn't like it. It wouldn't have been disapproved had we submitted the plans. It is in the best place it could be with how the lay of the land is.
As far as comforming to whatever the specs are, there are NONE on roof pitch. Only, "additional buildings may be one story in height", which we are changing in the Covenants to read 2 stories..... NOTHING on pitch. Everyone has stated they like the building, but 1 person does not like that, swaying others even AFTER they have said NOTHING is wrong with it. Our covenants also say with regard to the ARC members, that once they are appointed, they are there until you are no longer a member of the Association. Thanks for your input Michele.....

regardless of what is says about how long one is a member of the ARC, the above is what I am in question about....

Initial approval is always the way to go ... having said that ...

Many governing documents say that an item not found within violation in a certain time period is considered approved. They also run the opposite way too. Ours, for example says that failure to enforce at one time does not waive the right to do so later. Look in your docs for Non-waiver of Right or something similar to see what yours says.

A couple quick thoughts ... Have you actually received a violation on the matter? Many docs give you the right to appeal a violation before the entire board. If it's truly just one member who has a problem, you might be able to get a variance. Alternatively, if your community is small, you might be able to try to get some type of amendment passed in your official documents which would permit such a thing, then the ARC rules would not be able to deny it.

Probably not since they caught it within two years. In a lot of places it is two years after they became aware of the problem. While as I and others have pointed out this is 100% your fault for not seeking the proper written approval, especially since your husband is on the ARC. How can he expect to enforce a policy that he so readily flaunts? That said if it would have been approved and if other buildings have been approved with a similar pitch, I do not think it right to force you to re-build the roof.

DOCTRINE OF LACHES,

Based on the maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not those who procrastinate regarding their rights; Neglect to assert a right or claim that, together with lapse of time and other circumstances, prejudices an adverse party. Neglecting to do what should or could, have been done to assert a claim or right for an unreasonable and unjustified time causing disadvantage to another.

Laches is similar to 'statute of limitations' except is equitable rather than statutory and is a common affirmative defense raised in civil actions.

Laches is derived from the French 'lecher' and is nearly synonymous with negligence.

In general, when a party has been guilty of laches in enforcing his right by great delay and lapse of time, this circumstance will at common law prejudice and sometimes operate in bar of a remedy which is discretionary for the court to afford. In courts of equity delay will also generally be prejudicial.

But laches may be excused from ignorance of the party's rights; from the obscurity of the transaction; by the pendency of a suit, and; where the party labors under a legal disability, as insanity, infancy and the like.

What is "almost" 2 stories?

How do you know the pitch is 9/12?

What is the pitch of the roof of your main house?

One final question: What is the pitch of the other person's main home?

Thanks.

In another post, I referred to our own guidelines that specify that the pitch of any outbuilding must be the same as the pitch of the main house.

So as your home is 6/12, we would not approve any outbuilding with a pitch other than 6/12.

Of course, we would not have approved the 9/12 outbuilding when the main was 8/12, but that would likely be easier to waive through than going from 6/12 to 8/12.

In the end, I hope you get what you want, but it does look like an uphill battle.

I didn't say it was "okay" -- Just said it was probably easier to get a waiver for the one (if one was even attempted, I don't really know), than to go from 6/12 to 8/12.

It doesn't really matter, because neither would have been approved here for the outbuilding.

I think our ARC even requires a gazebo pitch to match the main home, but I'd have to research that.