|
After a long period of watching from the sidelines, I
have decided to weigh in with regard to the proposed modifications to the
Covenants. My wife and I have lived in Pine Brook for almost 17 years
together with our two kids, now grown. The main attraction to living in Pine
Brook after moving here from Southern California was the reduced regulation
and the refreshing reliance on individual personal responsibility. As an
architect and developer of many master planned communities along the Front
Range, I deal with these issues on a daily basis. I currently serve on 5
owners associations and 5 architectural control committees.
That said, just as our society needs to live by
certain basic laws, our Covenants need to establish a consistent baseline
for governance in order to assure each land owner that their property values
will be maintained.
I am in support of merging the different filings into
a consistent whole, but have specific comments on some of the proposed
language:
1.
To the best of my knowledge, the Pine Brook Hills HOA owns no
property and is not responsible for the maintenance of any Common Area
Improvements. This should be clearly stated in the Recitals.
2.
Section 2.3 What “neighborhood services” may be provided by an owner?
Does this mean a property could be developed by someone who provides snow
plow or landscape services that benefit the neighborhood? Or, does this make
provisions for the fire station, water system, etc. If so, this language
should be tightened up to restrict it to those services. On that note, are
the fire station and water system (reservoir, tanks, treatment facilities,
etc.) members of the HOA and subject to these covenants? (They should be).
3.
Section 3.1c The term “private garage” should be defined as attached
or detached, or should allow for both. The term “guest house” should be
defined to include accessory uses such as artist studios, shops for hobby
ventures (non-commercial enterprises), etc. Provisions for sheds, barns
(where allowed in Units 1-3), and accessory structures for things like hot
tub enclosures, etc. should be included.
4.
Section 3.1 The term “stained” should be modified to include
“painted”. Not all building materials are conducive to stain as commonly
defined. Provisions such as this should really be included in the ARC Design
Guidelines so that they may be more easily modified over time as building
materials and technologies change. Including specific provisions such as
this in the Covenants would require a vote of all owners to modify.
5.
Section 3.1 This section introduces the terms “building” and “out
building” which are not defined. The Covenants should be consistent in the
use of defined terms such as “dwelling”, “guest house”, “residence”,
“structure”, etc. or they may be contested in the future. This could be
resolved by stating that all definitions shall be consistent with those used
in the Boulder County Land Use Code unless specifically modified in the
Covenants.
6.
Section 3.4 This section should include noise nuisances. In
particular, I live near a resident who plays music outdoors at night loud
enough to be heard many lots away. While this rarely goes later than 11pm,
provisions should be made to prohibit excessive noise from being heard from
adjacent properties, and limiting hours. “Excessive noise” and limits on the
hours should be defined.
7.
Section 3.5 Seriously, “cesspools” are allowed? If this is used to
allow for septic tanks, then it should be modified to say septic tanks and
not allow cesspools as traditionally defined.
8.
Section 3.6b Do we really want to include the broad definition of
“canines”? This would imply wolves, coyotes, foxes, etc. may be kept as
household pets.
9.
Section 4a (should be “b”) The last sentence ends with “presumed”.
Presumed approved, or presumed denied? I assume you mean approved.
10.
Section 4c (should be “d”) There should be some definition of what
“improvements” are subject to ARC review. Traditionally, things like decks
(under a specific height), landscaping, storage sheds (under a specific
floor area), hot tubs, fences, etc. are excluded from ARC review. The
definition of what improvements are under the jurisdiction of the ARC should
be included in the Covenants.
11.
Section 5.2 By requiring a “majority of the lots” to approve an
amendment to the Covenants, you are requiring over 50% of the lot owners to
vote (upwards of 240 votes as I understand it). It appears that only 105 lot
owners even responded to the survey. If this were modified to “a majority of
votes received”, then you would avoid having an amendment fail due to lack
of total votes.
12.
I don’t see where voting rights are clearly defined. There should be
one vote for each lot. In Section 5.2 it suggests that “for lots owned by
multiple owners” there may be multiple votes. If a lot is owned by a bank,
trust, multiple names on title, etc. there should be one vote that is the
consensus of all parties who have interest in the lot.
As a licensed architect, I take issue with too much
governance in the design of structures and landscape within our community.
As others have stated, we do not want Pine Brook to become “homogenized” by
uniform design standards, but we do need to establish minimum criteria while
allowing owners and their designers to express their individual creativity.
This is a fine line walked by every HOA in the country and not easily put
into writing. We in Pine Brook benefit by the variety of styles built over
the years.
Bill Branyan |
