Saturday, December 6, 2014

Governing Document Revision Discussion Board

We are providing a forum for owners to comment and ask questions about the proposed governing document revisions.

For your convenience the PDF versions of the documents are posted at the links below:

Declaration (revised)

Bylaws (revised)

Letter from Suzanne Leff (HOA Counsel)

We did not achieve quorum for the annual meeting, so a new meeting has been scheduled at Peakview Elementary on January 7, 2015 to elect board member(s) and begin the process of collecting signatures for the document amendments (pending any changes that may come as a result of this discussion).

Thank your for participating.

Jackson Farms Board of Directors


  1. Section 9.4 regarding procedure. As days are not defined in the document we must assume the worst. 45 working days after a “complete” submission is extremely too long at 9 weeks in addition to any time in the back and forth for a “complete” submission. 15 days, 3 work weeks is much more reasonable. I would even argue 10 days, 2 weeks, is appropriate. The argument of flexibility is a poor one since the default if there is no response is “disapproved” if the response window is missed.

  2. The definition of “Improvements” is overly broad and legally addresses every blade of grass on the lot. In compliance of section 9.1.1 if someone in the future were to become unreasonable a home owner could need ACC approval to trim bushes and mow their lawn.

  3. Section 10.3.5 should be simplified to only "controlled substances" as this is something that is in flux at the state and federal levels.

    1. Document Committee MemberDecember 8, 2014 at 10:02 AM

      This is an error in the Doc's. The Document committee did change it to Controlled substances. After the last draft the changed by error. This needs to be corrected.

  4. Sections 9.1.3 and 10.3.17 This section could be worded better to be less adversarial. The federal and state laws noted in these sections limit the HOA far more than these sections lead the owner to believe. According to Colorado law, the HOA MUST consider, not “may consider”, impacts on purchase price, operating cost, and efficiency in creating and enforcing any provisions regarding energy improvements. See “Governor's Ranch Homeowner's Ass'n v. Gunther”. If the HOA fights this with a home owner and loses in court, the HOA is liable for legal fees.

  5. Great comments, I just want to let you know that we are reviewing and we appreciate your participation.


  6. Section 2.23 and 9.1.1, Improvements: Plantings, ground cover and walkways should be removed from the definition of improvements, especially in areas behind the fence in side and back yards

  7. Section 9.1.3: Energy Efficient Improvements. Agree with above post that this section is written more restrictively than allowed by current Colorado statutes.

  8. Section 9.2 Guidlines: If Covenant changes require 67% of owners to approve, why can the definition of Improvements be further enhanced, defined or or added to at the whim of any future Board of Directors? Proposed future changes should be noticed to the Members and voted on at an Owners Meeting.

  9. Section 9.4, Procedures: Completed requests not acted upon timely by the Architectural Control Committee should be deemed APPROVED, not Disapproved. 45 days is too long for a decision after the Committee has received all information required to make a decision. If a full committee cannot be convened within that time, the decision should default to a quorum of the Board.

    Section 9.9 Variances: The Architectural Control Committee "shall grant"; not "nay grant" reasonable variances. The operative word is "reasonable". This specifically affects Section 9.9, where for unforeseen circumstances (eg. unavailability of materials, weather delays, changes in required governmental permit conditions, minor location changes due to finding of underground utilities under proposed improvements, etc.) make it impossible to complete work "in complete comformity with the approval".

  10. 10.3.12: Should allow should also make exception for minor maintenance and repair of the prohibited types of recreational vehicles. It should be clear that pickup-toppers are not considered "camper shells"

    Section 10.3.13: 72 hours is too short a time for "abandoned or inpoperable vehicles. Sometimes it takes longer than that to make repair arrangements. One week would be more reasonable limit.

    10.3.19: replacement or removal of dead or diseased vegetation should not require Architectural Committee approval

  11. Section 12.2 Easements for the Board of Directors: The right of the Board to enter upon any Lot should be specific to the Lot only, and exclude the residence or outbuildings. The definition of Lot in Section 2.24 is synonymous with "Unit" as used in the Act. The Act includes "a physical portion of the common interest community which is designated for separate ownership or occupancy ...." in the definition of "Unit".

    Does Section 12.4 effectively "grandfather" any existing Lot on Lot encroachments?

  12. 10.30.12: Would like to see limits placed on parking of recreation vehicles, for example, 3 days before and 3 days after usage.

  13. What happened to the 'no campfires' provision? We had a very unpleasant experience over the summer where we were using our whole house fan during the evening to cool our house and a nearby neighbor had a campfire and our whole house filled with smoke. The houses are so close together, I thought it was a good thing to have.

  14. Section 9.1 Amendment of By-Lays. Amendments only require 10 votes, the majority of 18 for quorum, at a first meeting and only 5, the majority of 9 for a quorum, at a second meeting (See sections 4.7 and 4.9). This means that the board (5 members) or group of home owners with an agenda could amend the by-laws with as little as 5 votes. This is too low. A compromise could be to doubling the percentages, or maintaining a minimum of 10% needed to hold an Owners meeting.
    Also note that this is 16% fewer votes need for the community to have a board member removed (Section 5.6). I see no reason for the inconsistency. If a simple majority is needed to amend the By-Laws it should be the same to remove a board member.