Virginia City Highlands Property Owners' Association
Minutes - Special Meeting
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
PRESENT: Woolley, Lumos, Gravenstein
ABSENT:† Bent, Landaburu
1.† Call to order and approve meeting agenda
A quorum being present, the meeting was called to order by President Woolley at 7:15 pm.† There being no objections, the agenda was approved as published.
2.† Comments by association members (NRS 116.3108(3) (discussion)
Mrs. Judson asked whose is responsible for the drainage problem created by the grading of a lot on Cartwright just east of Musket.† President Woolley stated that it will be the property ownersí responsibility to ensure that drainage is adequate once construction is completed.† He noted that the culvert of the neighbor to the east may have been filled and that there could be future drainage problems there.† Joe Alt stated that the County should be involved in enforcing proper grading.† Bill Redman of the Architectural Committee may be asked to inspect the property for possible violations.
Stephen Musser indicated that the owner will be at the Architectural Committee at the next regular meeting for review of their plot plans.† The issue can be addressed with them at that time.
Mr. Musser pointed out that there is a problem with grading for construction on Lot 115A and 116A, Block M on Empire Rd. that is causing drainage onto the adjacent property.† This grading is on private property along a private access drive, does not affect association roads, and is not the responsibility of the POA.
3.† Appeal of Architectural Committee decision by James and Stacy Sipaila. (discussion/action)
Original plans for the property which is on the corner of Calaveras and Bonanza Roads were submitted to the Architectural Committee by Joe Alt.† The minutes of the Committee meeting indicate that the owner did not remain at the meeting to answer questions about the project so the application was denied.† The Sipailas have appealed that decision.† Although the action took place some months ago, the appeal was delayed until the new board was seated.†
President Woolley asked that all parties address their comments on the matter to the board and not to each other.†
The original application was under the 2003 Architectural Guidelines.† There was no written requirement for the applicant to remain at the meeting contained in those guidelines.† Stephen Musser, chairman of the Architectural Committee, stated that the fees had not been paid and that the Committee had many questions about the project. †Mr. Musser said that one of the questions was with the plan being similar or a duplicate of another built within 1000 feet.†
President Woolley stated that NRS 116 states that if regulations are not enforced the same for all cases they become null and void and that there have in the past been similar homes approved within 1000 feet of each other.† He questioned whether this restriction is now enforceable.
All parties agreed that there is not a house with a similar elevation within 1000 feet of the Sipaila property so this is not an issue.† Mr. Musser stated that since the applicant was not present, the plans were not reviewed at the Committee meeting and the application denied.
President Woolley asked Mr. Musser to review the plans the Sipailas submitted to the board to determine whether they are in compliance with the 2003 guidelines.† The review found the setbacks are in compliance with the guidelines and CC&Rís; the square footage is sufficient; the pitch of the roof is in compliance; and the materials and color for siding and roofing are approvable.†
President Woolley opined that since the application was made under the 2003 guidelines the fees in effect at that time should be assessed.†
A motion by Gravenstein, seconded by Lumos to approve the plans as submitted and assess a fee of $100 was approved unanimously.†
The applicant will need to appear at the next regular Architectural Committee meeting so that all forms can be completed, plans signed, and the fee paid.
Mr. Musser noted for the record that the Committee has long required that an applicant be present in order for review and approval of plans to take place.† Many stated that this has not been uniformly enforced over the years.† †
4.† Location and access problem of a portion of Clemons Drive being constructed outside the easement affecting Lots 67 and 68, Block N and Lots 13 and 14, Block P, Virginia City Highlands Unit 1. (discussion/action)
Clemens Drive is not entirely within the roadway easement through Lots 67 and 68, Block N.† The road has likely been in its current location since the original development of the Highlands.† It is believed that there are utilities located under the existing roadway.† There is reason to believe that a prescriptive right to the roadway exists due to long use by the homeowners in the area.
President Woolley reported that Lydia Hammack, a member of the Planning Commission, discussed the issue with Dean Haymore of Storey County.†† He reported that it is Mr. Haymoreís opinion that the properties on the southeast side of the road do have access to the existing roadway through the platted roadway easement.† The owners of those lots cannot make any use of the land between their property boundaries and the existing roadway other than for a driveway across the easement to the roadway. †The owners of the lots in which Clemens Drive is located may move the road to be within the easement if they so wish.
It was determined that no action by the association regarding the road location is necessary.
President Woolley stated that the prospective buyer of the home on Lot 68 is concerned that they will be liable for moving the road or other construction in the future.
President Woolley stated that the Architectural Committee had approved plans for the house on Lot 68 and then later notified the builder, Joseph Alt, that the approval had been revoked.† Storey County officials have said that they do not recognize a revocation, once approved, from the Committee for permitting purposes and allowed construction to proceed.
Stephen Musser reported that the Architectural Committee had asked the builder if there were any similar houses within 1000 feet of this house and were told that there were not.† A later inspection revealed that there are two similar houses within 1000 feet.† The Committee notified Mr. Alt that the approval was revoked on that basis.†
Mr. Alt stated that he told the Committee that there were similar houses within about 500 feet and that he does not agree with the statement that he misled the Committee.† Mr. Alt stated that the minutes do not reflect his recollection of the meeting.† There was no recording of the meeting.†
It was pointed out that the houses, although similar, are not identical in elevation and color.†
The governing documents do not provide for revocation of approval. †If it could be proven that false information was given the Committee there may be cause for revocation.
A motion by Gravenstein, seconded by Lumos that the Architectural Committee should issue another letter which rescinds the revocation of approval of the plans and affirms the previous approval was unanimously approved.†
Secretary Lumos will email a copy of the motion to Stephen Musser.
5.† Board members questions and issues concerning C.C. & Rí.s, By-laws, and Articles of Incorporation that may be presented to the associationís Attorney for clarification.† (discussion/action)
A list of suggested questions to be asked of the association attorney was reviewed and additional questions were added to the list.† (The list is attached to these minutes.)† It was agreed that the association attorney should be asked to provide opinions on the issues discussed.
Secretary Lumos volunteered to be the liaison with the attorney in this matter.†
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 pm.
Rita Lumos, Secretary
Questions for clarification by the associationís attorney