Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Let's talk about all things important for the Encinitas Ranch Homeowners Association
Blog Archive
Labels
- Architectural Improvements (1)
- Common areas (1)
- Crime Prevention (2)
- fire protection (1)
- Fire sprinklers (1)
- Traffic Control and Speeding (1)
- trails (1)
- water (1)
I believe, as many other residents also believe, that the Board has grossly overstepped its authority in amending, without notice, the Architectural Review policy so that it may now assess a $1000 fine upon a resident who commences any improvements prior to receiving Board approval.
ReplyDeleteThis fine is both OUTRAGEOUS and UNREASONABLE.
While it is commendable that the Board requires appropriate pre-improvement review for landscape, architectural and painting improvements, it is simply NOT FAIR NOR REASONABLE to assess a private homeowner with such a draconian fine without due process.
I suggest that the BOARD immediately reverse this new policy, and look for alternatives that are more reasonable and consistent with other neighborhood associations.
The board of directors is going to do several things to address the concerns raised at the September 14th board meeting in this area:
ReplyDelete1. We continue to believe that some amount of fine is necessary to get the attention of homeowners who do not file an architectural improvement application prior to starting work or for those who overtly choose to ignore 'cease and desist' letters.
2. We are going to reconsider the fine structure and perhaps look into a sliding scale for the fines based on a fixed percentage of the overall cost of the improvement. As an example, a $1000 job may result in a $100 fine while a $10,0000 job may draw a $1000 fine. We are open to suggestions. For now, we are going to wait 30 days and discuss at the next meeting.
3. We will clarify in a letter to the homeowners more precisely when an application for Architectural Improvements needs to be completed. I personally am not expecting that a homeowner needs to complete an application for very minor improvements like adding a light or a single tree or scrub. However, our expectation is that an application is required for major improvements like repainting the house, putting in new hardscape in the front or back yards or putting in a pool. I believe that additional clarity may relieve some of the concerns.
Regarding number 2 above: Basing a fine on how much someone spends is an odd approach. If I spend $10,000 dollars on a beautiful hand carved door for my backyard door into the house and another person spends just $5oo. dollars on a disgusting rock garden for his whole front yard then who is to say which is worse? I would assume the rock garden would be considered most harmful to the community yet had cost almost nothing. I would suggest imposing a reasonable fine to start with, regardless of cost of contruction and then escalate the fine to a higher amount if the issue is not resolved within some period of time.
ReplyDeleteRegarding number 3 above.
Finally I am reading some practical thought around what would trigger an Arcitechtural Imporvement application. As it reads now, if I am out at home depot one day and see a nice rose bush for sale, I would have to go home and file an an architechtuarl application just to plant it in my yard. Proposterous! Also, with the bad econoic times we live in, it is quite in vogue for people to want to plant small plots of vegtable gardens in their backyard. The way the rules read now, I cannot even plant a row of tomoatoes or herbs on my side yard without getting permission from the association. I find this rather rediculous and I am quite certain all my neighbors would love to eat some heirloom tomatoes when they ripen on my vines. Just what kind of community are we trying to create here????
The board wants to clarify when an application for Architectural Improvements is required. It appears that they may be some confusion or misinformation in this area. A formal application (which can be found on our homeowners' web at www.encinitasranch.org/) is only required for major improvements and those other enhancements that would have a significant change to the look of the house. Examples of when an application would be required include:
ReplyDelete- House painting
- Pools
- Spas, jacuzzis
- Patios
- Trellises, gazebos, patio covers
- Solar systems
- Hardscape
- Large trees
No applications are required for simple enhancements like replacing, flowers, scrubs and other plant materials.
If there is any question regarding whether a proposed improvement requires an application, please call Chris Jaeschke at N.N. Jaeschke at
858-795-7028. Chris can answer any question in this area very quickly.
The board is also reconsidering the adoption of a fine policy for homeowners who do not submit applications for work requiring one or, for those homeowners who do not stop work after they have received a 'cease and desist' letter from the HOA. The impetus for this proposed fine policy resulted from a number of situations where major and very visible projects, clearly requiring a formal application, were not submitted before actual work started. Furthermore, In some cases, the work was completed before an application was ever submitted. We have had other instances where the board asked for work to be halted until an application was submitted and reviewed and the work continued. These situations potentially exposure our community to improvements that are definitely inconsistent with our CC & R's and Architectural Guidelines. There are horror stories in other homeowners' associations of similar nature that seriously impacted the overall aesthetics of the community.
We received feedback about the proposed fine policy which we welcomed and are considering potential changes to it over the next several weeks. We will update everyone once a decision is made on any changes. We need to remind everyone that we will send the proposed fine policy out for review again by the homeowners before it is adopted just like we did a month ago. The board cannot on its own approve such a policy without homeowner review.
Lastly, the board does not issue fines without due process. Homeowners who do not follow the process are always called in for a due process hearing where the board hears their side of the story. The board can then make a decision not to fine the homeowner, fine them an amount up to the maximum (or lower) or, waive the fine. The board is not out to generate revenue from fines.
Please do send out a detailed letter that explains what types of improvements need to be approved, and please communicate this to N.N. Jaeschke. I recently moved into the community and I inherited a small bare patch of ground in the back yard that I wanted to plant a rose in. When I called NN Jaeschke to inquire about this, I was told that I would need to file an application to install my rose. I couldn't believe this, so I called back a week later and talked with a different person, but got the same answer.
ReplyDeleteIt just didn't make any sense to pay someone to draft an architectural drawing of my yard, and then pay a $250 application fee and wait 45 days for the privilege of planting a rose in my back yard, so I didn't plant anything and still have a bare patch of ground. The new $1000 fine for unapproved improvements has made me even more fearful of doing anything to my yard.
In fact, since I have moved into the community this year, I have refrained from doing any improvements to my yard for fear of getting cited or fined. I suspect that there are a lot of homeowners who are similarly not performing improvements to their yard because of the perceived restrictions. I am glad to hear that small improvements do not require approval and I hope that the board will send out a very clear letter that explains in detail which types of improvements require approval and which types don't.
For the record, I am in favor of requiring approval for major changes, and I am not opposed to small fines as long as they are reasonable, finite and appealable. The way I read the policy change, I could be fined $200/day forever without recourse.
A letter went out to all of the homeowners on September 30th clarifying when an architectural application is required. As mentioned above, the board is only requiring an application for major projects. Please feel free to call and talk with Chris Jaeschke at 858-795-2078 with any questions in this area.
ReplyDeleteThis is UNBELIEVABLE. The Board's Oct 23 letter regarding the Proposed Policy Change is a blatant slap in the face of every resident. Not only did the Board ignore every reasonable and fair-minded suggestion from several residents, they have now INCREASED the punitive clout that they can wield whenever they choose to. This is so OUTRAGEOUS it almost defies belief. If you would like to join us in the important fight against the Board on this policy, please email me at crwuerz@gmail.com.
ReplyDeleteIt is very unfortunate that the previous homeowner who posted a comment on October 30th is making statements without all of the facts. The facts are:
ReplyDelete1. The board clarified in great detail when an architectural improvement application is required on Septebmer 30th. In that letter, the board indicated that an application is only required for major architectural improvements not ordinary enhancements like replacing plants, scrubs, gates, or other simple landscaping/home updates.
2. The board did not ignore suggestions from homeowners. In fact, the board met repeatedly between early September and October before revising the proposed fines and examined numerous alternatives. The homeowner who posted the comment on October 30th may be upset that we did not choose to implement the changes he peronally proposed. However, we had to look at the bigger picture and provide enough flexibility to address innumerable permutations of architectural improvements. There was simply no that we could come up with a workable schedule or set of fines based on the type of improvement done without creating too much complexity. We wanted to keep the fine policy simple and allow the board some discretion in evaluating various situations and then applying the appropriate fine if, and only necessary.
3. We have NOT increased the punitive clout as suggested in the recent post. In fact, we have reduced it. Only in the most serious and blatant situations would the board impose the maxium fine.
4. The board and HOA are not out to generate income from fines. In the past few years the board has imposed fines of a few thousand dollars per year and again in only the serious violations of the CC & R.'s
5. This fine policy was put in place to address a number of homeowners who totally disregard the CC & R's related to architectural improvements. They go ahead with improvements knowing full well the policy and process. They choose to ignore it because the current fines are not sufficient to get their attention. So, the board needs to provide enough flexibility to address those who choose such blatant ignorance of our policies and processes. The fine policy was developed to help protect everyone from homeowers who may implement an improvement well outside of our community theme and environment.
6. As we did earlier this fall, we are publishing the PROPOSED fine policy for community review. The community has a month in which to provide comments to the board, all of which will seriously considered.
I strongly believe that the Board should NOT be in the business of looking for ways to impose fines on residents. If the Board would spend time establishing real architectural guideines instead of making up the rules as they go along, we would all be better served by their time.
ReplyDeleteBut to believe that the Board, if given such broad powers of financial punishment, would have any inclination to ever impose anything less than a maximum fine is, well, to believe in just about anything.
Nobody is fooled by the tactic of 'proposing a simple fine policy' with your right hand while telling us with your left hand that you have no intention of trying to generate income.
By the way, this writer isn't 'upset because they didn't take my suggestion' (I'm insulted that the Board President would make such a statement). In fact I heard many suggestions from several homeowners. Several of them were sound, fair and quite easy to manage. NONE of those suggestions made it past the ears the Board.
If the Board really valued the opinions of residents, then a survey would do the trick, or perhaps a couple of choices offered by the Board from which the homeowners could vote -- I had suggested a referendum coincident with the annual election of officers that would have been both expedient and democratic.
This nonsense by the Board must be stopped; otherwise they will continue to look for ways to create fine after fine after fine for their own coffers instead of looking for ways to truly improve this community.
I understand the need for these rules and regulations. Ultimately they protect our property values by enforcing adherence to the CC&R's, which is exactly what we want. We want to maintain our property values, in fact we want to improve them, but we cannot do this is we have non-conforming property within our conforming community. Everyone knows this, in fact, they know this before they move into the community. The conforming beauty of the community is probably one of their reasons for choosing to live here. Hugh Terrell, 630 Brae Mar Court
ReplyDeleteCan someone please explain to me what the maximum fine is? The "$200/day which may exceed the $1000 amount" sentence seems to indicate that the fine can grow forever without limit. I am in favor of a fine in extreme cases, but I think there should be a very clear maximum.
ReplyDeleteA homeowner could be fined $1000 for making major architectural improvements, as defined in the letter sent to all homeowners on 9/30, without Architectural Commmittee approval.
ReplyDeleteIf a homeowner continues work after a 'cease and desist' letter is sent to them then they could be fined up to $200/day until they cease work. So, as an example if they continued work for four days after receipt of a 'cease and desist' letter then they could be fined up to $800. Obviously, if they continued work for more than five days they could be potentially fined in excess of $1000.
The current fine policy is apparently not sufficient enough to merit attention from homeowners. We have had several who have openly indicated that they will just ignore the whole process and pay the fine.
The board has the responsibility to ensure that they are enforcing the CC & R's and there are currently a number of homeowners in open violation of them now. It is the desire of the board to do all they can to ensure that everyone is following the process for improvements as laid out in the CC & R's and Archtitectural Guidelines.
That seems reasonable, and I support the way that you are describing it and the way that you intended to use it, but I still see a few issues that I hope are resolved.
ReplyDeleteYou just said "...after receipt of a 'cease and desist' letter...", but the actual proposal says "..has issued a Cease & Desist...". Due to the post office delay, the difference between "issued" and "receipt" could be several days, which makes a big difference when you are talking $200/day.
The other issue that I see: What happens if someone starts a small project that they believe does not require approval, based on the September 30th carlification letter. The Sept 30th letter is not part of the CC&Rs, so the board has the power to ignore this letter and still fine this person $1000+$200/day for whatever reason they feel like. An honest person, who would willingly submit an application for an improvement, can now be fined because they were misled into thinking they didn't need approval.
I am not suggesting that the board would misuse their powers, because I don't think you will, but it is this wiggle room and uncertainty that I think is making homeowners nervous about this proposed policy.
I think that there needs to be some provision in the policy for notifying people that a fine will be issued, before it is actually issued. Or, add the contents of the Sep 30th letter to the CC&Rs so that current and future homeowners can have a clear understanding of what requires approval and what doesnt.
Jake, first of all the board is very reasonable and pragmatic. They would take into account when a cease and desist letter is received not when it is sent. Also, if such a letter is to be sent out N.N. Jaeschke always calls the homeowner to alert them that this letter is coming.
ReplyDeleteLet us comment on the other issue of being concerned about undertaking a project that the homeowner does not believe requires an application. The homeowner can always call Chris Jaeschke at N.N. Jaeschke and get clarity as to whether an application is required. Also, the board would not send out a cease and desist letter unless it believes that there has been some egregious violation of the architectural guidelines and blatant disregard for them. They are focused on serious problems not little projects.
Lastly, the board offers every homeowner due process as required in our governing documents and by law. Before any fine is potentially levied we call the homeowner in for a due process hearing where they can explain their situation. Our experience is that in many cases with homeowner input, the board elects not to fine a homeowner. No fine is imposed without the entire board reviewing all of the background and facts on the potential violation.
The board has bent over backwards to ensure that the homeowner is given plenty of opportunity to make sure that all of the pertinent background and facts are presented.
We recently decided to forgive a fine that had been imposed because of some serious personal issues that had impacted a family. The board did that because it was the right action to take and it was done quickly and very willingly. We are not out to generate income from fines. The fines imposed and collected represent a rounding error in terms of our overall budget.
Yes, I fully understand and trust that the current board is reasonable and kind when it comes to imposing fines. I am not attacking the board or rejecting the policy. I just think that it needs a few small tweaks to improve it's clarity. And, I am thinking about the future, 20 years down the road, when there is an entirely different board that may have different actions, and new homeowners who don't have the Sept 30th letter.
ReplyDeleteIf the board always has a due process hearing before imposing a fine, then why can't we put this in writing in the new policy?
If the board is only concerned about serious problems, then why can't we append the contents of the Sep 30th letter to the new policy?
Neither of these changes would affect the way that the board takes action, and it would provide much needed clarity to homeowners. Is there any reason for leaving these things out of the policy?
Jake is correct about the need to amend the CC&Rs to include the September 30th letter and the due process prior to a fine. There should be NO CONFUSION on what constitutes an architechtural inprovement for current or future homeowners and current and future board members.
ReplyDeleteAt the December 14th board meeting, the board received input from the community regarding the new proposed fine policy. Based on the input, the board agreed NOT to adopt the policy. However, it is clear that the current fine policy for violations of the architectural guidelines is not working. We have seen a dramatic increase in homeowners who flagrantly ignore the guidelines and our CC & R's. The board is simply trying to protect homeowners from implementing an architectural improvement that is not in keeping with the overall theme and aesthetics of our neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteWe intend to schedule and hold a board meeting open to the homeowners either in February or March to discuss and to hopefully come to an agreement on a policy that everyone can live with yet achieves the necessary objectives for the community and our CC & R's. In the meantime, we welcome your input on how to best revise the current policy in this area.
At the December 14th Board meeting, over 125 signed petitions (in opposition to the policy) and emails were delivered to the Board. Several homeowners made the additional effort to attend and to voice their opposition and concern. After that meeting, at least 30 more petitions were received in the mail. It is apparent that homeowners widely objected the Board's proposed actions.
ReplyDeleteIt became apparent at the meeting that it is only the Board that believes that the current polict is not working, and it is only the Board that believes more punitive fines are needed. No information has been presented by the Board to justify the new policy.
In fact, the Board ackowledged at the meeting that the current architectural guidelines are vague and under-defined, and they ackowledged that without more specific guidelines, it made sense to abandon the proposed new policy. We're happy they did that.
I recall at the meeting that the Board agreed to work at refining the guidelines rather than simply change the policy for fines. We encourage the Board to spend time developing an appropriate and acceptable set of guidelines for architectural improvements. Homeowners deserve that.
We are available to assist in that work, and we encourage others to participate as well.