Issue I

“Whether the subdivision needs a new way to manage the interface between lot owners’ construction expectations and the architectural constraints stated in the covenants.” [Problem Statement #17 in the survey]

The current covenants provide few specific details about architectural requirements and materials, and grant broad discretion and authority to the Architectural Committee. This approach is easy to administer, it provides discretion and flexibility, but it can create inconsistency when committee members change. Its success depends on the Architectural Committee making appropriate subjective judgements.  An alternative is to adopt formal architectural standards. This approach would require a significant, ongoing administrative effort to write and maintain architectural standards. It would provide less discretion and flexibility. Its success depends on a quality set of standards being consistently applied. Both approaches will sometimes create controversy. By 24 to 12, the membership surveys supported undertaking a process to reconsider architecture review. (Pro-change members score= 2.0). But the comments provided little consensus on how to do so.

 

Because of the membership’s division on whether to do this, and the lack of clear direction to take, as with Issue G, above, the Board believes this subject deserves more detailed future discussion by the HOA membership. NO VOTE REQUIRED.