This was an interesting discussion. Interesting to witness as a non committee member, knowing how these same requests have been handled in the past. Interesting too, to find out that though there is no 'approved' change to the CCR's by membership yet, this member basically appealed to the Architect Committee for permission to put up what amounts to a metal gazebo on his driveway. It will be used not only to shelter his vehicle but to entertain with BBQ's from time to time.
While the act to seek permission is commendable there are some interesting aspects to this that did not enter into the discussion. The current CCR's require a 2 car carport or garage with a driveway from the street to the structure. Now, whether you use the carport/garage to store the two vehicles is up to you so long as they are not vehicles being worked on. Last night the statement was made by the Chair of the committee the member was unable to park both of his vehicles in his two car structure due to inadequate space. One could concede the structure is too small although typically a two car structure has typical dimensions and unless the vehicles are somehow distorted in size due to after factory alterations [height for instance] then the structure should be sufficient. UNLESS of course, like most people, the structure is used for storage! Again, that is fine. Park your car on your property outside the carport/garage. However, it has historically been stated that to add a carport structure that in any way impedes the permitted 2 vehicle structure with a temporary structure is a 'no-no'. Additionally, to 'close in' the carport or garage in a fixed permanent fashion without providing the required 2 car structure with the driveway leading to it is a 'no-no'.
Is this what happened at the meeting? Did they permit a temporary structure to be raised for the expressed purpose of housing a vehicle that impedes access to the 2 car structure? Don't know. Didn't sound like it. Here are a couple of questions: Is a structure 'temporary' when bolted to cement? Is it raised and razed or raised and left standing? Does the County Code define 'temporary'? Does it allow for temporary structures being built for the purpose of residence while building a new residence on the same property and then must be demolished prior to 'final permitting'? The CCR's does require that all government regulations be observed prior to permission from the Arch Committee. Then again, currently, the CCR's actually refer to 'permanent' structures being built on the property and frankly those are usually relative to 'single family' dwelling. If you wanted to put a metal shed in your yard for storage you do not need permission from the Association to do so. Likewise, if you want to erect what amounts to shade and shelter for your vehicle or a BBQ area you do not need permission from the Association. If you need a permit that is between the owner and the county not the Association. The 'big government' mentality of policing individual 'rights' is beginning to creep into the process. Interestingly, while gracious to the member for bringing it to the committee for approval it was obvious they were profoundly lacking direction and though they'd spared no effort in trying to determine where their responsibility was defined within the CCR's or even in compliance with County Code, they could not specifically justify the need to review. They did however go out on a limb of precedence in saying they would provide the requisite two signatures for the application to give the member permission. The Chair was not comfortable being one of those signatures....the voice in the back of his mind was speaking to him wisely.
The man needed no permission to put this up. It is his property. He violates no CCR's. He may be in violation of County Code, but again, that is between he and the building inspector. The Committee, who clearly wants the big government say, should have thanked him for submission but let him know he did not need their permission to do what he wanted to do UNLESS of course, it did impede the carport/garage structure which would prevent his being able to park 2 cars in that structure. It did not sound as though that was the case.
Moving on to the other business of the meeting. You should be aware there is some issue with the rewrite of #3 as it is being proposed to the Board. They are suggesting that the owner with a desire to build a home must submit preliminary renderings for their initial review [suggested change to CCR#1] and #3 is changing to allow the committee 45 days to review those. Moving on to the second 'review' the 'permit review' if the committee fails to COMMENCE a review of the plans within the requisite 45 days the owner may proceed. How is 'commence' going to be interpreted by HSCA down the road? When they receive the copies of the permitted documents and the office staff stamps 'received' on them? When they notify the member as to the date of their review? It is dangerous to use such subjective, even ambiguous, language in legal documents without clearly defining the intent/application/definition.
The Neighbor Notification process is still being pushed forward which is a manifest waste of HSCA assets. Prescribing a mandatory process simply to force the 'opportunity' for neighbors to commune with each other is AGAIN a big government mandate. While they dropped the idea of neighbor input because it clearly inferred the input would have some effect on the 'outcome' or 'decision' of the committee to approve/disapprove, they still require the process. Why? This should be clearly discussed by all members at the Board meeting.
The rest of the rewrite is well done and should be approved easily by the Board with subsequent consensus from members during a vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment