A PLACE TO BE
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Why was this not
Ratified ?
When one looks at this year’s Budget, they will find a $21,000 Major Improvement item described as the “Maintenance Bldg. Repair”. This was no repair, it is an addition to the maintenance building.
Why is that?
Owners would have easily ratified this addition if given the chance. Describing this construction as a repair when it's clearly a substantial addition suggests that those in charge don’t want to be bothered with the ratification process.
Why is that?
One wonders why every Board opts to disobey Article X in the Declaration of Covenants and Article VII of the Bylaws. These Articles are the only checks and balance tools the concerned owners who care about the appearance of our Village have. Our Village has had major changes in appearance and substantial additions in the past eight years during which our membership has never been asked to ratified a single one.
Why is that?
I’ve heard the excuse that you need 75% of the Association membership to say yes in order to ratify. As I read it, all you need is to call for a ratification meeting and have 75% who show up to vote say “yes”. It is that simple as the condensed Covenants and Bylaws confirm below.Declaration Article X: Although the Association may construct additional facilities, there shall be no material alterations or substantial additions to the Common Elements except as authorized by the Board of Directors and ratified by the affirmative vote of Voting Members casting not less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the total votes of the members present at any regular/special meeting called for that purpose.
Bylaws Article VII: There shall be no substantial additions/alterations to the Common Elements unless authorized by the Board of Directors and ratified by the affirmative vote of the Voting members casting not less than 75% of the total votes of the owners present at any regular/special meeting called for that purpose.
These are the only Articles that specifically require the affirmative percentage of the voters present at a meeting while all the others specifically require an affirmative percentage of total membership (1024 owners) as these additional condensed Articles below will confirm.
Covenant Article IV. Amending the Declaration: the affirmative vote of the Voting Members casting not less than three-fourths (3/4) of the vote of the members of the Association.
Bylaw Article III. The Calling for Special Meetings: Members representing a majority of the Unit Owners' total votes
Bylaw Article IV. The Removal of Directors: by the affirmative vote of the Voting Members casting not less than a majority of the total of members in the Association.
Bylaw Article X. Amendments to the Bylaws: If the amendment has received the unanimous approval of the full Board of Directors, then it shall be approved upon the affirmative vote of the Voting Members casting a majority of the total votes of the Unit Owners.
If the amendment has not been approved by the unanimous vote of the Board of Directors, then the amendment shall be approved by the affirmative vote of the Voting Members casting not less than three-fourths (3/ 4ths) of the total votes of the Unit Owners.
In closing, concerned members of the Association who care about the appearance of our Village should not be denied their lawful right to ratify the decisions made by these elected few. So far what’s done is done, but from this moment forward, let us have a concerted effort with understanding and following the Declaration of Covenants and Village Bylaws.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Quit trying to start more trouble! Haven't we seen enough in the past years? I for one like the new addition and it was needed.
I agree, the new entrance to the maintenance area is not only welcoming, but I am sure they needed the extra space inside. HOWEVER, Joey is right. It should have been voted on. It is a substantial change.
Doesn't look like a very substantial change or addition to me. Looks to be a couple or three hundred square feet to me, and within the confines of the maintenance yard. It's not using area that was not maintenance already. Now if it was built out on the first fairway or in the parking lot, that would be a substantial change.
I hate to rain on your parade but this is a substantial addition that is built on a parking lot. LD’s boat trailer was parked right there on that very spot for years. I for one also think Joe is right that this should have been ratified. I voted in the poll that it was a substantial addition. Most would not define the new bathroom over at the Pro shop a new substantial addition, but a 300 sq. foot building that needs building permits from the county, most definitely? I would have voted yes if given the opportunity.
I agree that we the OWNERS should have a say on what is being built on OUR property. I would have voted yes but that's not the point.
OK, so what is your point? (re: "I agree that we the OWNERS...")
Think about it! GEZZZ
"So whats your point!
Its not an hard answer!
Sorry, GEZZZ, I thought you were making some OTHER point, something other than it is a substantial change and we should have voted on it. Begging your forgiveness...
A little tiny 300 square feet room...added on to an existing structure...within the confines of the maintenance yard...not encroaching on any other common property...not infringing on any other common property usage...
Tell me again how this is a substantial addition or modification??...
It's not how BIG it is
It's how ___ ___ __!
It's all about the
MONEY!
RE: Tell me again
The way I see it after reading this post and the declaration is that the new restroom built at the Pro Shop is tiny and if this $21.000 near park model size addition is not large enough to be viewed as substantial, nothing will be. I believe this structure being added to the existing building by definition makes it a substantial addition. I feel it is irrelevant whether this is being built within the confines of the maintenance yard or in the middle of the road; both are on our common elements making any encroachment on other common grounds a bit senseless.
I would recommend that you read Article X as I did because it changed my mind. Here you go. Although the Association may construct additional facilities for the benefit of the Condominiums: there shall be no substantial additions to the Common Elements except as authorized by the Board of Directors and ratified by the affirmative vote of Voting Members. Hope that clears it up for you.
It required a building permit from the County for cryin' out loud! It is a substantial addition.
re Hope that clears it up for you...
Thanks for this, and I'm the "Tell me again" poster, and I do agree now that this would probably qualify as a substantial addition under Article X.
Hey, if they followed the rules you would only be able to rent through the Rental Office and LIV would be getting lots more money. Who cares about the rules?
You are absolutely right. No one cares that they are not following the rental rules, but they've got their undies in a bundle about this. Go figure.
Post a Comment