At last night's meeting, the board once again took up the issue of what to do about Mr. Salamanca's unapproved roof (10843 Deborah Dr). (Click on picture for a larger version) For those unaware of the situation, last summer Mr. Salamanca installed a synthetic roof on his house. He did not apply for permission to install this roof as required by our covenants (see Covenants, Article 5). Two board members visited him prior to the removal of his old roof and told him that he needed ACC approval before installing a synthetic roof, but he went ahead with the installation anyway.
The issue is not whether this new roof material should be allowed; the issue is that Mr. Salamanca did not apply to the ACC for the required permission before installing the synthetic roof. The board feels that if Mr. Salamanca's actions goes unchallenged, then the precedent would be set that anyone can make any changes to the exterior of their house without ACC approval.
Montgomery County has a commission, called the CCOC, to hear homeowner association disputes. The board filed a case with the CCOC and Mr. Salamanca was invited by the CCOC to state his position in writing. The CCOC, as is generally does, asked the parties involved to mediate their differences. If mediation is not successful then the case will be resolved by the CCOC. Last night the board discussed whether there can in fact be a mediated solution.
Note that the issue is whether there is a possible compromise on the failure to apply for ACC permission, not on whether there is a possible compromise on the roof material (which is irrelevant since the use of this roof material is not before the CCOC). Is there an acceptable middle position between "following the rules" and "not following the rules"? It seems to me -- and I'm not speaking for the board here only for myself (I'm not one of the board's representatives to the CCOC)-- that there is no middle ground between following the rules and not following the rules.
What do you think? Do you have a comment on this issue? If so, please click on the comment link and let us know your thoughts. We created Inverness Forest Today for two reasons: so you can be informed about what is happening in our community, and so you can provide your opinion to the board and to the rest of the community.
Harvey Levine
8 comments:
HOW TO LEAVE A COMMENT
1. Click the word "comments" at the end of a posting. Enter you comment in the box.
2. Enter the "Word verification" word that you see in squiggly letters to show that this comment is not from a computer sending spam. If you can't read the letters, you can click on the wheelchair symbol and hear a bunch of numbers spoken with a lot of background noise (to fool the spammer).
3. If you don't have a google account choose "Name/URL" and enter your name so people will know who wrote the comment.
4. Click "Publish Your Comment"
Harvey
I'm not sure of the wording of my original comment which I sent to Harvey via e-mail, but I believe that the matter should not simply go away. The owner/resident chose to live in Inverness Village, thereby agreeing to follow the regulations, but also chose to ignore the advice provided to him about the Architechtural regulations. At the least, he should have to pay some kind of a fine.
There is no middle ground on this issue. It is a procedural defect and there is nothing to negotiate unless we changed the Covenants as written and that can not be done without the approval of about 75% of the 304 homeowners. Therefore, I conclude that the Board does not have the legal authority to negotiate Covenant changes. Len W.
I dont believe a compromise is acceptable. You cannot pick and choose which articles you will and will not follow. Just paying a fining the person is not a good idea. If someone wants to redo his exterior in adobe stucco he can decide its worth paying a fine to get what he wants. The covenants are useless unless they are enforced.
If there is nothing wrong with the roof, and it looks good, then I don't see any reason to pursue further. if there were any corrective actions with respect to the material, then there were grounds to spend more time on this. Let's try to keep a happy community and spend our efforts on something more worthwhile. Frankly from the picture, I think his roof looks good, but his neighbors blue roof is the one that should get changed.
I do not approve of Mr. Salamanca actions; but I also think the roof issue has to be revisited again with an open minded approach. There are issues like adding solar panels at the flatter portions of the roofs eventually will need to be considered. We have already approved skylights. Cedar is more scarce everyday therefore more expensive and it is not a green solution. We are cutting about 2000 trees every 15 years to maintain the weather beaten appearance plus the fire insurance rates could be lowered. Shingles like DaVinci which have come a long way in appearance should be looked and considered. The original Architec screwup selecting cedar shingles for the low pitch portion of the roof. Life span of synthetic shingles is at least 40-50 years or 3 times the cedar type. What is the going rate for a new cedar roof?
Just looking at the comments and would suggest that issue of whether the roof looks good or even great is not relevant. The ONLY ISSUE is whether our community must enforce the Declarations and Covenants. The answer is I believe that the Board of Directors has no alternate but to enforce, that is a legal requirement that is part of all of our deeds. They should therefore enforce and assess the cost to all other homeowners when the cost is determined. So the expenditures from the current account would be replaced and every compliant homeowner would know why the assessment was required.
reading everyone's comments (and having researched roof repair and replacement options myself the past few years), it just looks like we need a community meeting/vote to discuss and reassess new roof options.
the old cedar roof mandate doesn't appear to be working. (and maybe this person desperately needed a new roof and this was the only feasible option for his budget!?).
perhaps the community needs to vote on expanding homeowners' repair options --then more residents would be able to afford (and willing to fix) the many old, expensive, and non-green roofs .
Post a Comment