[VCHPOA Agenda] Minutes 14-Mar-2006
Agenda distribution list
Agenda at vchpoa.org
Wed Apr 12 19:43:03 CDT 2006
[ As received from VCHPOA Secretary, 4/12/06 ]
Virginia City Highlands Property Owners´ Association
Minutes -Monthly Meeting
Tuesday March 14, 2006
Virginia City Highlands Fire Station Training Room
Present: Richard Woolley, Rick Bent (until 8:30 pm), Rita Lumos, Debra
Gravenstein (after 7:30 pm)
Absent: Martin Landaburu
I. Call To Order, Declaration Of A Quorum And Approval Of Meeting Agenda
(Discussion/Action)
Declaring a quorum present, President Woolley called the meeting to order
at 7:00 pm.
II. Approve Minutes Of March 2, 2006 Special Meeting (Discussion/Action)
* A motion by Bent, seconded by Woolley, to approve the minutes as
presented was approved unanimously.
III. Financial Statements (Discussion/Action)
A. Monthly Cash Report
B. Monthly Financial Statements
Lydia Hammack reviewed the highlights of the financial statements. Cash
on hand in the operating fund account as of March 14, 2006, is
$40,488.46. The amount in the reserve account is $27,419.40. The
expenditures required for storm related road repairs were $6,274.39. If
fuel were included the amount would be greater than $8,000, but it is
very difficult to compute the exact amount of additional fuel costs.
Approximately 100 unit´s annual dues are still outstanding which amounts
to $9059.25 in dues and late fees. Late notices were sent out March 1.
There is not a need to transfer fees from the reserve fund to the
operating fund this month but it may need to be done soon.
Lydia noted that transfer fees for the sale of properties are way down.
The county has replaced the sand that they borrowed during the January
floods. It is not certain whether the amount delivered included an
additional amount which was purchased until an invoice is received from
the county.
* A motion by Lumos, seconded by Bent, to accept the financial report was
approved unanimously.
IV. Comments by Association Members (NRS 116.3108(3)) (Discussion Only)
Stephen Musser attended a Nevada Legislative update seminar regarding NRS
116 last month and passed out handouts from that meeting. He stated that
the association is missing sources of revenue that don´t have to be
approved by a vote of the membership. He suggested that the board
consider instituting some of these fees. This will be discussed on a
future agenda.
A seller or his agent is required to give a buyer a copy of a "resale
package" when accepting an offer of purchase. The package includes the
association governing documents, the amount of monthly assessments,
current operating budget and financial statement which include a summary
of the reserves, and a statement of any legal actions pending. The
association may charge a reasonable fee for the preparation of a
certificate containing the amount of monthly assessments, etc., and up to
25 cents per sheet for copying the documents.
Some associations are charging $50 to $100 dollars for an owner´s
certificate.
The amount of the transfer fee paid to the association when a unit is
sold is not based on statutory requirements and is based on the
association´s rules. Many associations are charging a percentage of the
selling price. Mr. Musser related that a common fee in Incline Village
is 1% of the selling price of the unit. Some associations around the
state are charging $400 to $500 per transfer.
Cynthia Lak commented that a truck for sale is parked near the mailboxes
and asked how long it will be allowed to remain there. Maggie Hohn
pointed out that this is a 10 acre property. She stated that the
sheriff´s office has stated that they need a letter of permission from
the lot owner for the sheriff to enter the property and take any action.
Ms. Hohn stated that she will handle it through the 10 acre association.
Dave Abel would like an item on the agenda to discuss the Tahoe Pyramid
Link which is still in the planning stages. Large developments are being
planned for the area. Commissioner Hess would like to talk to the
association about the plans. It is rumored that there is a large
development planned north of the Highlands which might be accessed from
the planned highway.
Lydia Hammack, a member of the Planning Commission, stated that these
developments have not yet made any applications to the Planning
Commission or County Commission. She said that they have been told that
there is to be no access through the Highlands.
There was a discussion as to the ownership of the first mile of
Cartwright Road. It was dedicated by the plat of the Highlands Ranches,
but it is not known whether it was accepted for maintenance by Storey
County. Steve Musser said that there is record of acceptance in the
minutes of the County Commission and that the District Attorney has
opined that it is a county road.
Ron Field asked about snow removal. He lives on Fey and complained that
the road crew cleared the connector road to Fey and piled the snow on
Fey. President Woolley explained that the road crew has changed
personnel. The crew will be advised of the problem. Maggie Hohn pointed
out that there is an agreement from 2002 that delineates responsibilities
for plowing between the two associations. Fey is the responsibility of
the HRPOA. She will look into whether it was their plow or ours. She
said the crews do check the roads at higher elevations first.
V. Committee Reports
A. Architectural Committee (Discussion/Action)
Rita Lumos reported that Sherry McCready has resigned. President Woolley
has put out a call for volunteers and there have been respondents.
* A motion by Woolley, seconded by Gravenstein to nominate Bob Moore to the
architectural committee was approved unanimously.
Three cases were presented where complaints of possible violations of the
CC&Rs have been received.
* Motions by Lumos, seconded by Gravenstein and Bent to send notices of
these violations to each of the owners of the three properties to ask
them to remedy the situation or appear at a hearing before the board in
executive session on April 11 were approved unanimously.
* A motion by Lumos, seconded by Bent, to file a complaint with Storey
County Code Enforcement regarding a small building within the front
setback was approved unanimously.
Rita Lumos reported that she had gone to the building department to learn
of building department´s inspection process as directed at the February
meeting. She noted that the inspector does check for compliance with
setback requirements when they do the footing inspection for new
construction. Eric Geuvin, Fire Marshall, stated that they work with the
property owner on compliance with proper clearing of fire prone materials
around buildings on their property.
Rita stated that currently property owners are asked to stake out their
property and building outline and then a member of the Architectural
Committee currently visits the property and checks for setback compliance
and clearing before approving a person´s building plans and plot plan.
She asked whether the board and those present think these inspections by
Architectural Committee members are necessary and appropriate.
Stephen Musser stated that he feels the inspections are necessary since
once the plans are approved there is no chance to rescind the approval.
The inspection also gives the committee member to check the houses in the
neighborhood to ensure that the plan is not too similar to another within
2500 feet. Woolley says that it is an informational process. It was
pointed out that owners can be informed of the rules and advised to
comply with all the requirements of the building department. It was
reiterated that the county is responsible for code issues while the
Architectural Committee is responsible for aesthetic issues.
* A motion by Gravenstein, seconded by Lumos, that the Architectural
Committee be instructed not to do physical onsite inspections for
building setbacks at proposed construction sites was approved
unanimously.
Eric Geuvin stated that the Certificate of Occupancy would not be issued
until any necessary remediation is complete. President Woolley asked
whether the county enforces conformance to approved grading plans and
ensures that culverts are installed on drainage ways. Mr. Geuvin stated
that the county is encouraging a dip in the driveway rather than culverts
which plug easily. They are concerned about fire and rescue access and
don´t want very steep dips across driveways that would impede their
access.
B. Road Report (Discussion/Action)
John DuFresne has been plowing snow from the roads as necessary. He has
enlisted his father who is experienced in roadwork and equipment
operation to help with plowing. The two younger men who had been helping
him are no longer working on the roads.
VI. Old Business
A. Fire Station Lease Approval (Discussion/Action)
The proposed changes to the lease agreement discussed at the February
meeting were submitted to Chief Hames. There has been no response to
date. The lease continues on a month to month basis until the new
agreement is approved by both parties.
B. Sale Of Surplus Vehicles/Equipment (Discussion/Action)
The two vehicles were posted on Craig´s List on the internet. President
Woolley did research on the internet to determine an approximate value
for the vehicles. They were listed as $2500 each with the rationale that
they are worth at least that much for parts. They have not yet been
posted in the newspaper. They will be listed in the Tribune, Chronicle,
and the Big Nickel.
C. Park Construction Priority List (Discussion/Action)
Per the approval at the February meeting, the priority list and plan
posted on the web site were updated with the well as a top priority and a
letter sent to the County Commissioners urging the development of the
park utilizing park impact fees.
VII. New Business
A. Position On Open Burning Permits In The Highlands Discussion/Action)
As a result of a request by Dave Abel at the previous meeting, the issue
of supporting a ban on open burning permits was discussed. President
Woolley stated that he is not opposed to open burning permits during the
winter months, but not during the dry months. The Fire Marshall stated
that it is their position that open burning is an unnecessary risk. The
trees in the area will burn in any conditions and wind is a factor.
Issuing of a burn permit does not mean that it will be a supervised burn.
There were only about 5 permits issued last year. Those owners present
expressed agreement with support of the ban on open burning.
* A motion by Woolley, seconded by Gravenstein, to urge Storey County to
discontinue issuing of open burn permits in the highlands was approved
unanimously.
B. Attorney Response to Questions from the Board (Discussion/Action)
Rita Lumos reported that the answers to the questions the board sent to
the attorney in January had been received. The attorney has asked that
the exact correspondence not be published although the information could
be imparted to the board and owners. She read the questions and
responses. The opinions are summarized as follows:
* The hierarchy of the governing documents in order of importance is the
Articles of Incorporation, the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions, the By-laws; and the Architectural Review Guidelines or
other rules and regulations.
* The CC&R´s were originally written to extent until December 31, 1996 and
then extent for successive 10 year periods unless an instrument signed by
a majority of the current owners of the lots agrees to change it in whole
or in part. It extends automatically for a 10 year period if no action
is taken. It can be changed or cancelled only by a vote by written
ballot of the majority of owners. There are no other options for
changes.
* The By-laws contain language naming the Association as a rural
agricultural residential common-interest community. Per the provisions
of NRS 116 such an association is subject to the open meeting law. Some
provisions of that law are in conflict with provisions of NRS 116 which
require that all hearings for possible violations of the CC&R´s or rules
and regulations must be done in private and the names of those involved
cannot be made public. The attorney opined that the VCHPOA does not
qualify as a rural agricultural residential common-interest community and
therefore is not subject to the open meeting law. The board does feel
that the By-laws should be amended to remove the language naming it as a
rural agricultural residential common-interest community.
* The CC&R´s contain language regarding an architectural control and
planning committee and have very broad and vague requirements for the
buildings to be "in harmony" with the general surroundings. The attorney
was asked how much authority the board and architectural committee have
to set standards for approved colors, construction materials, etc. He
answered that the board and architectural committee have the authority to
determine what colors and construction materials are deemed to be in
harmony with the surroundings. These standards cannot be in conflict
with the CC&R´s. The CC&R´s do allow reasonable variances and
adjustments of the stated conditions and restrictions to overcome
practical difficulties. The attorney believes that conditions such as
the high fire danger in the area are sufficient reason to allow building
materials other than the 50% wood exterior finish stated in the CC&R´s.
* The Association does not have the authority to charge a fee for the
review and approval of construction plans. It does have the authority to
charge a fee to offset the impact of new construction of the condition of
the roadways. He cautioned that there is no Nevada case law on this issue
but stated that the Association is in a strong position to prevail as
long as the fee is provided for in the governing documents. The current
language in the architectural guidelines states that "the fee schedule is
established to offset the Committee operating costs and costs associated
with damage caused to Association roads by deliveries of heavy
construction equipment and construction materials". There is authority
given the Association in NRS 116 to regulate the use and maintenance of
the private roads and to impose fees for the use of the common elements,
which include the roads.
* The board was concerned that since the amount of the annual dues are
included in the CC&R´s and are very difficult to change that there might
be an inability to adequately fund the reserve account as required by NRS
116. The attorney affirmed that the Association can impose a special
assessment for this purpose. There was a challenge to the Association on
this subject a few years ago and the District Court ruled in favor of the
Association´s right to levy the assessment.
* NRS 116.31065.5 states that any rule that is not uniformly enforced may
not be enforced against others. The board asked whether there is a way
to negate past actions (or inactions) and enforce the rule from that
point forward. It also asked whether granting of a variance for a single
property owner in effect granted a variance for all owners.
The attorney pointed out that at some point in every association´s
history some rules are not enforced. If the Association is making an
effort to enforce the rules uniformly, despite previous violations, then
a court would find the Association is acting properly. If there is
widespread violation of a rule then it may not be able to enforce the
rule. If there is only a limited number of previous violations, then the
court would likely rule that the Association has the authority to enforce
the rule.
The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled that a use restriction is valid and
enforceable if the purpose of the use restriction can still be served. A
similar test may be applied to the Association´s right to enforce an
architectural guideline.
* The board asked whether the time period for voting on changes to the
CC&R´s could be extended so that those who had not responded could be
contacted. The attorney responded that there is no Nevada law that
addresses this situation but advised that it would be better to set a
sufficiently long time for the ballots to be returned so that reminders
could be sent out.
A discussion about impact fees ensued. The language currently in the
Architectural Guidelines appears to meet the conditions described by the
attorney in order to be valid. The authority might be stronger if the
language was included in the By-laws.
President Woolley went over a method for calculating the amount of an
impact fee based on the cost of road improvements based on a study done
in Nye County. The amount of the fee will depend on which of the
alternatives in the long range road plan is approved by the property
owners. These will be presented to all owners by ballot before the
annual meeting. Depending on which alternatives are chosen there is the
possibility of an assessment charged to all lots and an additional amount
charged to those owners building new homes, additions, or outbuildings.
Ray McPartlin asked whether there is any way to make the County take
responsibility for the roads. This would be difficult since the roads
are not built to County standards and they are not required to accept
them for maintenance. The roads are owned by all the individual owners
whose lot contains the roadway easement. Each owner would have to
dedicate his/her portion or the County would have to obtain it by Eminent
Domain.
The board considered whether to continue charging the fee of $100 for new
residences and $75 for additions, barns, and outbuildings, or to raise
the fee to what is estimated for the future road improvements to be voted
on. The current fee of $100 approximately equals the cost for one hour
of grader and driver use. Many feel that the method outlined by
President Woolley is an appropriate one. It was decided to continue with
the existing fees until the long term road plan is voted upon and
adopted.
C. Any Other Matters Which The Board Members Wish To Discuss (discussion)
Karlyn McPartlin read a passage from the CC&Rs regarding signs which
states that only signs advertising a property for sale and of a
reasonable size are allowed. She stated that the Wireless Highlands
vendor has put signs in people´s yards without their permission and
reportedly told her that he has written permission from the board to put
up his signs. No one has knowledge of the board granting him said
permission. Maggie Hohn doesn´t recall that the HR board granted him
permission for the signs.
It was suggested the Mrs. McPartlin should submit a complaint in writing
and the board will place it on the next agenda for action.
VIII. Adjourn
* A motion by Lumos, seconded by Gravenstein, to close the regular meeting
and go into executive session was approved unanimously. The executive
session is required by law to discuss possible violations by owners of
the governing documents. At the end of the executive session the regular
meeting was reopened.
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10.45 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Rita Lumos, Secretary
More information about the Agenda
mailing list