| The line numbering relates to the Strikeout and Underline Version only; not the final document | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Nbr | Line Number | Goldcrest Homeowners Association Covenants Meeting 09/17/09; Prior Comments and Committee Revisions | Action and A Brief Explanation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1 | Lines 1-378 | Some members pointed out that the covenants online were slightly different than the ones copied for the meeting. Phil will check that. | No; a review of selected parts indicates that the Internet version is the same | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 | Lines 1-379 | One member repeatedly wondered why anything needed to be changed what precipitated the changes. | Clarification: Changes resulted from a Board of Directors decision to update the covenants which had not been changed since 2003. The final document is the culmination of the Board project that began in 2008. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 | Line 8-20 | - Include reference to the role of the bylaws in enabling the covenants | Yes; see the new language on Line 20 and the new definition of the term "bylaws" on lines 30-31 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4 | Lines 9-17 | The vision statement in general agrees with the general tone but the vision is really a given. | No: It is important to include some statement of purpose and a vision for the subdivision. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 | Line 9 | "forested" is not consistent with neighborhood. You either have a forest or a neighborhood. Find another description. | Yes; wording changed to "wooded" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6 | Line 9 | likes the word "forested." Wants to protect the forest in and around the neighborhood. | Yes; wording changed to "wooded" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7 | Line 10 | strike "its." | Yes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8 | Line 11-15 | the sentence beginning "When each..." is unnecessary and should be removed. | Yes in part: Text has been changed to state: "When homeowners commit…" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9 | Line 12 | make "residences" singular. | Yes in part: Text has been changed to state: "When homeowners commit…" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10 | Line 13 | put a period after "improve" and capitalize "Property." | No. While this is a long sentence, maintenance of properties to a high standard results in higher property values and neighborhood desirability. Creating a second sentence separates cause from effect. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11 | Line 26 | Needs a reference to the RCW which "changes the rules and expectations for homeowner associations" | Yes; a reference to the RCW has been added | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12 | Lines 34-35 | Belongs in the bylaws | Yes in part. The Covenants Committee will be added to the bylaws. However, since it has a substantive role in the governance of the covenants, a definition should be included. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 13 | Lines 36-38 | Definitions (8) (line 36) and (10) (line 38) are repeated later in the text and should be deleted from the definitions section. | Yes Lines 80-81 and Line 90 have been removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 14 | Line 46 | Does Former Line 44 mean on private property or only on Association land? | Clarification: Recreational play equipment applies to both the common areas and lots | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15 | Lines 50-55 | Clarify the definition of the term "trailer"; does it include a car, van etc. ? | The definition now specifies that it is referring to recreational vehicles, mobile homes or trailers for moving persons or objects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 16 | Lines 56-196 | This section references the Architectural Committee but we have to wait until line 187 to learn about the committee. Section B should be moved to the front so that it is clear who/what the committee is before Section A describes the policy. | Yes in part: The Definition of the Architectural Control Committee | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 17 | Lines 56-93 | the covenants refer only to permanent structures and do not address non-permanent structures. The city ordinance allows non-permanent structures to be next to the property line. (This comment resulted in a clarifying discussion about the intent being to only govern the residential structure's distance from the property line; for non-residential structures the issue is visibility from the street.) | Clarification: Lines 65-68 refer to residential buildings; nonresidential structures are not covered by these set back restrictions | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 18 | Line 72-73 | details in bylaws | No. This is an important statement that "changes to exterior paint colors" require Architectural approval. Re-painting a residence the same color does not. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 19 | Line 74 | Clarify if cedar shake or cedar shingles are permitted | Both cedar shake and cedar shingles are permitted. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 20 | Line 81 | Clarify roofing standard for Garden Houses | Shingled or similar materials that are consistent with the residence are now required. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 21 | Lines 95-96 | a clarifying question is the intent to allow businesses in homes in which the business activity is not visible from the road? | Yes. However, the conduct of home businesses is subject to regulation by the city of Olympia. Home based businesses may require city approval. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22 | Line 110-116 | Description of Board Subcommittee Belongs in bylaws | No. The Architectural Control Committee does have a significant role in landscaping plan review and that should be acknowledged in the covenants, not the bylaws. However, the methods for obtaining that approval has been moved to Section III B (lines 241-248) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 23 | Line 122 | if the association wants to regulate noxious weeds, it should define the term. | Yes. The reference to Noxious Weeds has been removed since there is a Thurston County Noxious Weed Control Board that regulates noxious weeds on land in the county. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 24 | Line 122 | Comments from a homeowner concerning English Ivy (see attached email) | Yes. Reference to noxious weeds has been removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 25 | Lines 119-121 | Describes a nuisance as seen by definitions and enforcement authority. This is an expansion of association authority into a quasi-judicial role. Is it legal or desirable? | Clarification: The Association intends to have limited lot appearance standards and to prevent weeds from one lot spreading to the adjoining lots and thus, presenting a maintenance headache and nuisance to adjoining lot owners. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 26 | 122 | A member who was a member of a large association in another state cautioned the committee about getting into monitoring and enforcing lawn care and weeds. It proved difficult and time consuming for the other association. | Clarification: The standards for lawns have been changed in Lines 114-116 to a requirement that lawns be mowed and weeds be controlled. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 27 | 122 | Does not think we should be measuring the length of grass. It is not appropriate. Has concerns about the definition of excessive what would be excessive? Also even "weeds" like dandelions may have beneficial uses for some people. so how do we regulate that? We need to stay a relaxed and friendly neighborhood. | See Item 24 supra. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 28 | Line 129 | should be "builder, not building." | Yes. See Line 129 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 29 | Lines 128-134 | A homeowner lost a dog. put up flyers, was told to take them down. It took 9 months to find the animal. Need to allow signs such as "lost pets" or "lost children." Even signs by the association calling for meetings would not meet the proposed covenants. | Yes in part. The Committee agrees that signs for lost pets, garage sales and similar matters should be allowed. However, limits should be placed on the frequency and duration of signs so that the appearance of the subdivision is not degraded. The Board will consider such requests on a case by case basis (see Line 128). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 30 | Lines 128-134 | agree with the above comment about signs. | See Item 27 supra | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 31 | Lines 128-134 | also prohibits yard sale and meeting signs (implication of statement in context was opposes the prohibition being that broad). | See Item 27 supra | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 32 | Lines 128-134 | should allow signs (such as above) but put time limits. | See Item 27 supra | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 33 | Lines 128-134 | concerned about political signs being up for long periods of time before the election; should restrict how far in advance of an election they can be up not just how soon they must be taken down. Line 124 say "30 days before the election." | No. Political sign posting is permissible under RCW 64.38.034 and the US constitution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 34 | Line 135-136 | None of these are used anymore. If there is a problem, a polite request would take care of it. Including in the covenants is overkill | No. The standard does apply to newspaper boxes but also more broadly to any curbside or driveway receptacles. These receptacles can be an eyesore and adversely affect the appearance of the subdivision. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 35 | Line 140-145 | Hard to understand the sentence that begins "When referring to trailers..." Please rewrite it. | Yes, the definition of a trailer has been re-written | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 36 | Line 140-145 | Rewrite and put the trailer definition into the definition section. | Yes, the definition of a trailer has been added to Section I (see lines 51-55) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 37 | Line 140-146 | Clarify Usage of recreational vehicles as residences | Yes, only the residential building is to be used as a residence; use of a recreational vehicle on a temporary basis is limited to 30 days per year. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 38 | Line 152-153 | concerned that this provision may prohibit parking a fully operational car/van/truck in the driveway for an extended period of time such as while a child is away at college. | Yes, the standard has been revised to cover inoperable vehicles parked in driveways | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 39 | Line 146-148 | the prohibition is too broad. | No. The prohibition is needed to prevent long term parking in RVs in the subdivision. This is an contentious issue in many communities and Goldcrest has maintained and enforced RV limitations for many years. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 40 | Line 146 | strike "less than"; line 137 insert "van" | Yes in part: Language concerning the duration of parking of RVs has been modified (see Lines 146-147) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 41 | Lines 136-143 | (In response to the general discussion about parking useable normal size vehicles on the property I clarified that we were after the eye-sores of broken down vehicles or large RV/Boat/Trailer kinds of vehicles that should be hidden from sight.) | See Items 35-36, supra | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 42 | Line 155-156 | change the sentence to be a positive statement. | Yes, the sentence has been rewritten. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 43 | Lines 156; 160 | What is a sanitary container and where do we get them? City voluntary recycling bins cost money. A local recycling plan would save money and truck traffic. If imposed by the Association, will the association pay for them or is this a new tax imposed by the Association? | Yes in part. The word "sanitary" has been removed. The Association does not pay for trash service or disposal of yard waste; this is the responsibility of the homeowner. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 44 | Lines 155-162 | This is somebody's opinion. What are the Association policies on Environment, recycling and water management? It should be in the bylaws | No. These standards related to the maintenance of the lots and the prevention of nuisances, not the bylaws. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 45 | Line 191 | at the end of the sentence add "without the approval of the board." | Yes, this phrase has been added | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 46 | Lines 193-195 | The city and the county have authority and budget for this. Why does the Association want new authority here? | Clarification: This section is necessary to cover activities that adversely affect other lot owners, such as barking dogs, noxious odors and the like. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 47 | Lines 197-251 | This section is poorly drawn. Part of it belongs in bylaws and the rest is jumble, i.e., must antennas and satellite dishes by visible from the street. What are the technical qualification of the Committee and will they pay the homeowner for technical review | See Item 48 below. The Committee and all Board members are volunteers wishing to help their community. The homeowner will pay for the costs of any technical reviews, rather than having other Goldcrest owners subsidize an individual lot owner. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 48 | Line 205 | strike "those" | Yes, see change to Line 205 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 49 | Line 211-212 | concerned about loading the covenants committee with too many people (in response to it being "three or more) | Yes. Section B.2 is changed to 3-5 members | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 50 | Line 223 | strike "to or" add a comma after "change" | Yes. The language has been revised. Also, Lines 230-232 have been moved to lines 218-220 for clarity. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 51 | Line 225-229 | may conflict with Federal Communication Commission regulations (we were given a copy) concerning satellite dishes and cell towers. See attached memorandum | Yes. The Language has been modified to be consistent with the FCC Over the Air Reception Devices Rule and Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act. The standard now covers only those direct broadcast satellite, Broad band Radio service and Television Broadcast antennas that are greater than 1 meter in diameter. The language concerning interference has been removed since modern antennas do not cause this problem. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 52 | Line 240 | strike "structure" and insert "application" | Yes. The language in Line 240 has been modified | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 53 | Line 254-255 | It is questionable whether Association has authority to make binding rules on appeals. That is what courts do; will Association pay court costs? | Yes. The sentence "The decision… binding" has been removed; the parties may use arbitration to resolve the dispute. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 54 | Line 259 | delete the rest of the sentence starting with "provided however" and ending on line 238. It does not add anything. | Yes. Lines 259-261 have been modified accordingly | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 55 | Line 264 | after "the" strike "aforesaid" | Yes. Line 264 has been modified accordingly. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 56 | Line 265 | strike "said" | Yes. Line 265 has been modified accordingly. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 57 | Line 266-269 | reword the sentence to be clear. Strike "If the assessments are not paid" and capitalize "Unpaid" | Yes. Line 266 has been modified accordingly. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 58 | Line 279-283 | look at the entire sentence to make it more clear | No. The language is clear that the covenants are in effect for ten years and then automatically extended unless a majority of homeowners agree that the covenants shall lapse. Goldcrest has extensive common areas that require maintenance and almost all similar communities in this area have and maintain covenants. The Committee believes that the likelihood of removing the protective covenants is remote but the right to make amendments to the covenants should include the right to remove them all together if this is the will of the majority of Goldcrest owners (see Section C.3). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 59 | Line 283 | asked the clarifying question of whether that subsection means the association can repeal the covenants and operate without them. The answer was "yes." | See Item 55 supra. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 60 | Line 285-287 | The section allows changes without public prior knowledge and discussion. Contrary to RCW and common law | No. Changes to the covenants require initial approval of the Board and then distribution to the members at least 30 days prior to a homeowners meeting. The meeting allows for discussion of the proposed changes. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 61 | Line 282 | strike "duly" | Yes. Line 282 has been modified accordingly | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 62 | Line 286-287 | strike "then" and insert "current lot"; strike "of the lots" and insert "sets" and insert "recorded with the county auditor" | Yes. Lines 286-287 have been modified accordingly | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 63 | Line 288-302 | strike "entry onto" and insert "enter" | Yes. This is moot since existing Section C.4 has been deleted. Also, Section C.6 has been amended (see lines 352-353) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 64 | Line 288-302 | This authorizes warrantless search and seizures as well as a fine without trial. Lawyers will love this; billable hours for constitutional violations. Section C-4 needs to be rethought | Yes. This is moot since existing Section C.4 has been deleted. Also, Section C.6 has been amended (see lines 352-353) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 65 | Lines 304-328 | Needs to be reconsidered. The Association and its board, committees are not law enforcement or judicial organisms. City has lawyers and compliance officers when there are legal grounds. No advantage for quasi-legal kangaroo courts | No. The Committee believes that the Covenants Committee provides a useful mechanism for determining the facts and hopefully, resolving disputes involving alleged violations of the Covenants. However, in the event that the matter is not resolved to the satisfaction of all the parties, the matter can be appealed to the Board. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 66 | Line 326 | I saw on line 302 that we use the term "compliance panel" instead of "covenants committee." We should fix that. | Yes. Line 326 has been modified accordingly. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 67 | Line 351-375 | Poorly thought out. Mandatory arbitration is like being a little bit pregnant. Association enforcers after grass heights will make lawyers happy. Remember last arbitration experience | No. Binding arbitration is the proper method for this Association to resolve disputes. Litigation is very expensive and becomes a public matter that can detract from home values and the desirability of the community. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||