The Proposed CC&Rs
Posted By: Your Friendly Neighbor
I first off want to thank the Board for their service. Whatever differences we may have as members of the community, my feeling is that – whether misplaced or not – the Board’s intentions are sincere. So, thank you for your service.
Where is Article I of the proposed CC&Rs? The PDF copy posted on this site jumps right to Article II.
If fire prevention is the problem trying to be addressed by the proposed CC&Rs, why a special assessment provision in section 2.05? If this language really is necessary, why not limit it to a certain annual amount? The annual amount could even be tied to an inflation index. It seems to me that given the subject of fire prevention $50 may not be unreasonable, but why should we give the Board a blank check?
Also, if fire prevention is the problem trying to be addressed by the proposed CC&Rs, why such a long proposal? Do we REALLY need to specify garage sizes (3.06) or whether our kids can camp out in our backyards (3.21)? Has there been a plague of greenhouses, pools, or basketball courts that have infected our neighborhood (3.06)?
My feeling is that while there are both strong opponents and advocates for the proposed CC&Rs, there is a large majority of homeowners in our neighborhood that understand that there is a need for some limited rules. However, I would venture to say that the majority understands that while some rules are necessary, most issues in our neighborhood are bested solved through neighborly communication rather than by the hammer of legal system. To me, the proposed document falls short in this respect. The document seems to have a slew of solutions to non-existent problems.
8 Comments
Permalink
How, when and where can I cast my vote AGAINST the proposed CC&Rs?
More than happy to help on the fire issue…
Permalink
I am MORE than happy to contribute to fire prevention maintenance for our ‘hood, but I too am against the proposed CC&R’s. I do not like that they have taken all of the Article III characteristics from Plats A and B and mandated those codes on all plats. I am getting ready to build in Plat M-2 and would like it if I wasn’t mandated to have to have 1500 sq ft on my first level. I want to build an efficient sized house (2000 sq ft, w/ 1000 up and 1000 down) and don’t feel like this mandate is reasonable.
Will there be an official vote for the proposed CC&R’s? Does anybody know?
Permalink
I believe the requirement would be 1,200 sq. ft. for the first level of a two story house (and 800 for the second). Only single story houses have the 1,500 sq. ft. requirement for the first level. If they decide to keep this requirement in the rewrite, maybe they should just do 2,000 sq. ft. total for two story homes rather than specifying 1200 first and 800 second.
Permalink
Can someone help me understand the voting process here? If we don’t vote for the cc&r’s then that is a vote against, right?
Also it would be good to know if this is done on a plat by plat vote system..
Anyone know the voting rules?
Thanks!
Permalink
Hi Bill,
Thanks for asking. We are having a meeting on Jan 9th at the Richins Building, 6PM. We’ve pulled the proposed CC&Rs and are going to start from scratch.
The votes are counted by plat. But, honestly, I don’t even want to go there until we get a good set of documents that the neighborhood appears to be happy with.
We would love your help…
Thanks!
Chris Quinones
SPHA President
Permalink
Thanks Chris for the info!
Permalink
I happen to agree with your objection the square footage requirement. We should be advocating efficient, non obtrusive homes which reflect todays sustainability values. I would much rather see an allowable maximum size. This certainly would reduce the number of clear cuts some of these builders get away with around here. It’s gut wrenching to see it happen. I am looking forward to the meeting and hearing what our neighbors will bring to the table. Lets not light our torches and kill the monster quite yet.
Permalink
Some of our biggest beefs with the proposed CC&Rs were with sections of the Architectural Regs. I’m a tree hugger and hate to see beautiful 100 year old trees cut down for stupid reasons, like you need a place to park your RV, True story there. There have been some abuses by speculators, but one thing we all have to keep in mind is that the majority of the lots in SP are small and the terrain can be a challenge to building a home here. Sometimes that health beautiful old tree is right in the middle of the lot and there’s no practical way to build your house without removing it. The neighbor that just completed his home next to us was genuinely sad to remove some of the healthy trees that he did, but there just wasn’t anyway to build his home without removing them. He left the ones that he could.