Architectural Control Committee Meeting Minutes

ACC Quarterly Meeting 2/24/2005

Members in Attendance:
Chair Paul Cavazos
Reg. Keller Drozdick
Reg. John Sumner
Alt. Carl Ankewich
Alt. Brian Zurovetz

Agenda:
1) Appointing a scribe for meeting minutes and posting to web site.

Brian Zurovetz volunteered to scribe and Paul Cavazos agreed to post the minuts on the web site.

2) Confirming all members of the committee

Paul as chair read from the bylaws Article 111. ACC , and Article 111. Division 3.2 Composition and Designation of Committee. Committee composition and designation of its members was discussed and clarified. All agreed that the ACC as stated in the bylaws would be comprised of three regular members to inclued an appointed chair., and two regular (voting) members. It could also have up to two alternate (non-voting-unless otherwise desginated by the chair) members, and two associate (non-voting members.

3) Establishing suggested meeting times

After meaninful discussion on frequency, necessity, and the requirements for regular ACC meetings it was determined that the ACC would meet quarterly, The Feb 24, 2005 meeting was designated the meeting for the first quarter of 2005.

4) Discussion of current fence staining issues

A Medallion representative brought to the attention of the ACC both verbally and via e-mail that several homeowners had stained their "good neighbor" fence on both sides. This had become an immediate issue because the Medallion "spec" home in Pinon Creek 2 was being sold and the new owner was concerned that his/her side of the "good neighborh" fence had been stained by two other property owners. The result was that the "spec home" prospetive buyer's fence had been stained by two other property owners.The result was that the "spec home prospective buyer" now has a fence of three different colors.
The ACC determined three issues needed to be addressed. They are, A) What action needed to be taken regarding the property on the "spec home" , B) Determine if any other homeowners had stained both sides of their fence adjacent to Medallion property, and C) What preventive actions could be taken to ensure incidents of this type would not occur again.
A) What action needed to be taken regarding the property at the "spec home"?
-After a lenghty discussion on all the points applicable to this issue the ACC determined the following course of action:
-Both property owners had submitted an ACC Request for Approval Varitation, Alteration or Change after their respective fence was already stained. One request was approved before the "staining both sides of the fence" issue was brought to the attention of the ACC and the second one was not.
-The ACC determined Covenants Division 4.5, NUISANCES applicable and would submit the property owner names to the Covenants committee for action. Furthermore, the homeowner with the approved ACC Request for Approval, Variation,Alteration or Change would remain in effect with the proviso that they would fix having stained both sides of the "good neighborhor fence" in compliance with the Covenants Committee's direction. The second homeownerwhose ACC request had not been approved would be denied such approval until they fix having stained both sides of the "good neighbor fence" in compliance with the Covenants Committee's direction.
-Covenants Division 4.5, Nuisances states:"No nuisances shall ever be erected,caused or suffered to remain upon any portion of the Properties nor shall an owners,resident's or other party's use of the Properties, or any portion thereof, whether same be a Lot, part of the Common Area or otherwise endanger the health or disturb the reasonable enjoyment of any other Owner or resident or visitor of or the the Properties..." The ACC determined that by staining both sides of their "good neighbor" fence the property owners had created a nuisance for the prospective homeowner and Medallion, owner of adjacent lots.
B)Determind if any other homeowners had stained both sides of their fence adjacent to Medallion property.
-It was determinded that an ACC rep. would assess "good neighbor" fences in both Pinon 1&2 and determine if any were stained on both sides with one side facing a Medallion "SPEC" property or vacant lot. Any homeowner property determined to meet this criteria would be submitted to the Covenants Committee for action.(Itwas assumed that issues arising from fences stained on both sides with current property owners would already have been resolved or it would be their responsibility to bring before the ACC and the Covenants Committee.
C) What preventive actions could be taken to ensure incidents of this type would not occur again.
-A letter would be drafted requesting the Medallion Sales Rep for Pinon Creek advise all new prospective homebuyers prior to closing that if they desire to stain their fence they must first get ACC approval and should only stain the fence on their side of the property. Furthermore, the ACC will clearly state in their approval for fence staining that only the fence on the property owner's side will be stained under that respective approval. Finally existing homeowners will be advised of this issue and policy in the Pinon Creek HOA Quarterly Newsletter.
5)Ways to make existing homeowners as well as new homeowners aware of obtaining approvals for changes in accordance with the "Restrictive Covenants"

The Covenants Committee would determine if any curent homeowner are in violation and request that they fix the violation and/or request an official ACC Request for Approval, Variation,Alteration or Change
-Request the Medallion Sales Rep advise all new prospective homebuyers of the "Restrictive Covenants
-Request the "Management Company" provide literature to homeowners just prior to closing advising the of the ACC Request for Approval ,Variation, Alteration or Change Process
-Existing homeowners will be advised of the ACC Request for Approval, Variation,Alteration of Change Process in the Pinon Creek HOA Quarterly Newsletter.
6) OPEN
-NONE
7) Adjourn