I attended a HOA Board meeting on 2/15 to discuss the appeal of the front setback exception on the Hagan property at 29684 Lee Rd. There is a substantial case to be made to the Board of Adjustment after I spent some 20 hours over the last 10 days researching the files, including a 3-hour trip to the P&Z offices. The Board did not have a quorum, so they could not decide if they were going to join the adjacent homeowners and other interested parties in the appeal.

However, at the end of the meeting, a vital action by the HOA board was revealed that for all intents and purposes, makes the appeal rather moot.

LAST SEPTEMBER, THE HOA BOARD APPROVED THE BUILDING PLAN FOR THE HAGAN LOT, INCLUDING A VARIANCE TO BUILD ON LESS THAN 0.6 ACRES, AND HAS NOT ANNOUNCED THAT ACTION TO THE HOA MEMBERSHIP.

I was astounded when I heard that news. Here's how it happened according to Larry Cerrillo and Brenda Hatch.

On September 6, 2006, at my request from the August general meeting, the HOA board sent a letter to Hagan notifying him of the covenants and requesting that he comply (he is the new owner of the lot formerly known as the Retterer lot, which was litigated in 2005). Hagan immediately complied by sending a building plan to the Board (Covenant 2.E), certified, return receipt, that Larry signed for (date unknown). A few days later, Hagan sent a site plan to complete the submittal, dated September 21. The submittal did not specifically ask for a variance from the lot size (Covenant 2.G) and was made after the septic system had been installed, but before the well was drilled.

Larry said that the Board talked about it but did not send Hagan any letter of approval or denial, nor did they ask for additional information with respect to the variance for lot size. Covenant 2.E states that if the Covenants Committee (since there is no Committee, the Board is acting in this capacity) does not respond within 20 days of receipt, the building plan shall be deemed to have been approved.

In addition, because this lot, being 0.587 acres, does not conform to Covenant 2.G, which requires 1.5 acres, a variance is required before the building plan can be approved. However, since the Board approved the building plan by default, they also de facto approved the variance, upon which that action depended.

I AM ASKING FOR THE HOA BOARD TO RESIGN AND HOLD NEW ELECTIONS AT A SPECIAL MEETING, PER THE BY-LAWS.

We need 10 people to stand up for our HOA and actively enforce the covenants and report to the Owners. Our Covenants do not protect our properties if they are not enforced.

I welcome your enformed and constructive replies.

Greg Scott 303-674-7236

Recall Process

Greg, If you want to recall the Board, I believe there is a process to recall members in the By-Laws. As for demanding resignition, I believe that an Associate Member does not have the right to make such a demand--you are out of order.
If the Board resigned, where are you going to find the 10 people to replace them? Where were those people when we had the last election? Not many people will volunteer now and face the vitriol that you have been spewing.
You want a new board and CCC? You better have the replacements sworn to take the job first.

Resignation vs. Recall

Bill, section 1.04 of the By-laws states that an Associate Member cannot vote, but makes no other distinction with respect to HOA participation. Asking for resignations is not addressed --- so I'm not out of order.

Further, Section 2.04 says that Officers may be removed by a Voting of the Members at any meeting, so I cannot do that since I cannot vote. Note that even the officers and Covenants Committee members do not need to be Regular Members.

Finally, in my original email to you (and 24 others) I outlined exactly how we would proceed to gather the 10 new or re-elected officers and CC members. That email was too long for the website.

Greg