Summary of Special Meeting Minutes
meeting was called to order at 7:04 PM.
was checked against proxies by the secretary.
Appropriate proxies were removed if a proxy signer was present at the
meeting. Twenty-six (26) lot
owners were physically present. Seventy-four (74) lot owners were
represented by proxy.
lum explained the ballot for voting on proposals.
ballots were distributed. Any lot owner who held proxies was instructed to
write their address on the ballot for proxy verification. This
was announced three times. Any
lot owner holding proxies was instructed to write at the top of the ballot
the number of proxies held such
+2, or so on. The number for each proxy holder was announced by the
secretary before voting began. Each
of the three (3) proposals was read and voted on, one at a time.
Shaffer and Mike Fel
lum collected the ballots. Attorney Duane Stone counted them as Mel James
and Pat Cavanagh observed. Three
(3) ballots cast were disqualified because
2 lot owners with proxies did not write their address on their ballot, and 1
was disqualified because it was turned in after the ballots had already been
Stone retained the ballots to confirm the vote totals at his office.
Secretary’s copy of the ballot count indicates only one proposal passed
(according to the By-laws Article IV, §7) with a vote of 79 yes and 20 no
votes. The following regulation will be adopted into the regulations
affecting town homes only: “No
permanent clothes line of any kind shall be installed on any
.” The other two proposed
By-law changes failed because the majority vote did not reach the required
67% of all lot owners which is 109 votes.
The proposed By-law change for hiring a management company had a vote
of 81 yes and 20 no. The
proposed By-law change regarding the removal of a member of the Executive
Board member had a vote of 87 yes and 14 no.
wording for the proposed changes to the By-laws was moderated by Attorney
Duane Stone. All of the proposed By-law changes were submitted by lot owners
in the community. The new
wording for these proposals is in the attached document.
Open Discussion was held and moderated by Attorney Stone.
The following items were discussed:
Johnson asked what was the purpose for the proposed change in By-law
Article VI. He did not see a
reason for two boards. Lou
felt the community needs for lawn mowing and snow removal would be much
more difficult to manage with two boards, and he felt strongly there
should only be one board.
Grudovich agrees with Lou Johnson and further stated that two boards would
not solve the problems of two different types of homes within the HOA
Hess agreed with both Lou Johnson and Greg Grudovich.
The developer planned the community this way and while Mr. Hess was
not aware of any other HOA with mixed types of homes, it is now here and
creating two boards would not solve the problem. (Duane Stone interjected
that not only is this type of HOA common in
, it is becoming the norm across the country.) Mr. Hess also commented
that Attorney Stone has repeatedly stated that the HOA cannot be divided
into two HOAs and that if there were problems with realtor representation,
lot owners should contact the local board of realtors. Mr. Hess further
stated that information had been given to lot owners in the past.
Cavanagh concurred and stated that lot owners may be unhappy with their
realtor, and if a lot owner felt their realtor did not fully disclose HOA
information, that lot owner should contact the local board of realtors.
Johnson stated that the Executive Board has addressed the differences
between the single family homes and the town homes.
There is now a division of the regulations for each type of home;
for example, in the original regulations in-ground swimming pools were not
allowed for single family homes. There
was a proposal to allow this and it passed. Mr.
Johnson stated that is the way to handle the needs for each type of home
in the HOA community.
James felt that the two boards would act in favor of the two types of
homes within the community.
Cavanagh raised a question about the Non-compliance committee.
She asked why the names of the people on the committee were not
disclosed to the HOA community. Duane Stone remarked the names are
confidential because some people might retaliate against those committee
members. Pat Cavanagh also
asked if the Executive Board had authorized the non-compliance committee
members to look inside people’s windows to look for issues of
non-compliance. The Executive
Board answered this with an emphatic no, they are not. All issues of
non-compliance must be visible from common grounds or the public roadways.
Attorney Stone also pointed out that nothing inside a lot owner’s house
is subject to compliance regulations so it would be pointless for the
Non-compliance committee to look in a window.
and Mrs. Grudovich wondered if the board had authorized the non-compliance
committee to come on their lawn and take pictures of their home and
children. The Executive Board also answered this with an emphatic no.
There is no reason for the non-compliance committee to do this.
Attorney Stone said if this is happening, residents should call the
police and in addition, they should take pictures of the people taking
pictures of their property.
Grudovich reported that the police had been called and they advised they
should place “No Trespassing” signs on their property and they
wondered if this was allowed. Posting signs, except for realtor signs, is
not allowed. The Executive
Board agreed to discuss this issue at their next meeting.
Ifill asked how many lot owners there are in the community.
Duane Stone answered that there are 163 lots. Not all lots have
been fully developed but all lots have voting rights, including
undeveloped lots. The reason for this is that those lots are owned by
someone. There were several comments from the community regarding
undeveloped lots being allowed to vote. Pat Cavanagh said they do not live
here. Duane Stone affirmed
this is the law, those lots are owned by someone and they have a right to
vote. Those lot owners have a vested interest in the community because
they own those lots. In addition, some lot owners do not live here but
rent a property and the lot owner still has a right to vote.
Wuorinen suggested that the entire set of By-laws and Regulations be
retooled and he volunteered to chair such an Ad Hoc committee.
Shaffer offered the information that all municipalities have the right and
authority to look on any one’s property for compliance with local laws
and other reasons such as appraisals of property.
Jackson noted that in this community any lot owner may report an issue of
non-compliance to the board. Duane Stone affirmed this, and noted that
many of the non-compliance issues of the past have reported by some lot
owner and not always by the non-compliance committee.
was adjourned at 9:40.