February 8th, 2010 Covenant Board Meeting, Feb (Filings 1-10)
Notes from an observer (not the official minutes)
New covenant board members were appointed to the board and some office positions were moved around. Joe Henry resigned and Sean Mullen is now president. Michele Foulks is Vice President, and Kathy Wennan remains secretary/treasurer. Michael Blickenstaff was appointed to the board.
Because of winter, the board agreed to extend the time limit for finishing landscaping and taking care of weeds until the end of May. The board briefly discussed their “active violation spreadsheet” which included one residence with a mattress and other trash in the backyard and visible from the street. One board member asked how long it had been there and another answered, “Over a year.” Why did it take this long to resolve? Why is the board going after people who put up privacy fences and residents with trash? For other violations (none of which the audience was privy to), a board member asked how these were monitored. Erica said, “By homeowner reporting.”
Michele Foulks suggested that Colorado Management create a tally of violations. She said she has heard rumblings in the community that some violations are getting letters and others not. Erica will check on it.
Design and Review Issues. One homeowner with a 1 acre lot wanted to put privacy fence around his perimeter. Colorado Management denied his request, so he came to the board to ask for a variance. He listed three reasons. One side borders Meridian and the traffic is loud. He also needs to store a trailer behind a fence. He uses the trailer for his employer. It would not be visible above the fenceline. On the third side, he has neighbors with three dogs that bark whenever his family is out in the back yard. The board was reluctant to allow that much privacy fence and suggested he consider a privacy fence at the back of his house which could enclose up to 25 percent of his property. If it were at the back of his house, it could solve all three issues he had. The Board did not make a final decision and said they would discuss it in exec session and let him know.
The new Design and Review Handbook should be ready soon. One board member noted that it does not address roof color and that issue will be addressed before the handbook is finalized.
February 9th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
I have 1/2 acre that borders meridian and about a year ago when I inquired about putting up fence for noise reduction, I was told flatly NO WAY. I think, since Meridian was widened and is now practically in our backyards, that homes whose property abutts meridian road should be given the opportunity to at least put privacy fencing on the side of their property that faces meridian to cut down on noise. I’d be very interested in hearing what the result of the executive session was because this is an issue for me as well.
February 9th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
In the covenant meeting, they pretty much told the Meridian Rd homeowner that he could not put a privacy fence on his lot line. I don’t know why they said they would talk about it in executive session. Eastonville is another road that can get very dusty and noisy. It doesn’t make sense that one side of that road can have a privacy fence and the other can’t, just because they are in different filings.
February 25th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
So move the fence in a foot or two from the lot line.
March 1st, 2010 at 6:31 pm
I wish covenants were easier, uniform for all filings, and based in logic – that’s my editorial. I can understand the desire of a homeowner, who has a non shared propoery line adjacent to a busy county road (Meridian, Easonville), for a privacy fence along the border with that road. A fence along the property line provides a better buffer to noise (the closer to traffic the more abatement) than a “no more than 25% of the yard” privacy fence does within the borders of the yard. It also provides more visual privacy of the entire yard for the reason of parallax. It would also provide more security since it is harder to enter a yard over a six foot solid fence than a 4 foot split rail (which provides rungs to climb on). I would like to see the covenants changed for all property owners who have a non-shared property line adjacent to a county road, to be allowed to put up a privacy fence along that road. Some filings in the district already have this and some aren’t allowed. This doesn’t make sense. The “fort apache’s” consisting of a 25% of the yard privacy enclosure is not aesthetically pleasing to all. Some like them, but I for one thing they are remarkably un-attractive.
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:40 am
It is frustrating in that some covenants allow for privacy fences and some don’t – despite any inherent logic for or against them. The lunacy of allowing a developer to develop a community with different covenants for each filing floors me because It inherently creates conflict. It would be nice if there was a body that could hear out a homeower about an issue, and if that body agreed with the logic of the homeowner (i.e. a privacy fence along a busy road makes sense from a noise abatement, security, privacy, and property value perspective not to mention precedence for them already in the community) could then allow a variance to the covenants.
April 24th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
If you want to know, the covenant gang, and that what I call them now, have sent two harrasing courtesy notices to me. One for a dog run with a chain link fence and the seconed one for items stored on the side of my house. I went outside and looked. I can not find the dog run or the items stored on the side of the house. This is pure harassement. So what is next, non standard grass in the back yard, or unathorized pets, ie ground hog, rabbits or moles I hope everyone remembers this on election day. Also I don’t ever remember voting for the members of WHCMB. I am tired of their harrasement. I will be seeing a lawyer for leagal advise.