Waterford HOA Roofing Dispute:
Looking for Reality and Reason

    Waterford home on morning of first frost - click image for high resolution copy
Home with dimensional composition roofMajor subsection links:
    Part 1, Property Values
    Part 2, Homeowners' Opinions
    Part 3, What Else?

Some additional related pages are:
    Waterford Roofing Rebellion
    Waterford Recall Election

This is a study of an actual case, involving a proposed CC&R amendment in the Lake Forest Waterford Owners Association. The proposal is to authorize use of high quality dimensional composition roofing, subject to two criteria for minimum quality standards in the CC&R and to approval by our Architectural Review Committee. Summary notes on the history and details are at the bottom of this page.  The important points noted here are, in this writer's personal values:
In the world of conspiracy theorists in America there are Birthers and Truthers. Waterford has Roofers, and they're tearing our community apart.

The top-level issues in the actual roofing issues are:
Click on any Part 1, Part 2, or Part 3 link to see corresponding notes and details.


Speaking as an individual Owner of the Lake Forest Waterford Owners Association, explicitly not speaking for the Association as a director, my personal opinion is that we all can lose when a small minority of owners making unrealistic claims can thwart the will of a large and reasonable majority.

In words attributed to many public speakers, "You can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts." This HOA issue has suffered (to date) for 3 years from assertion of opinions as facts on this issue.

By the standards of my personal ethics, it is onerous that this minority has personalized the issue , attacking individuals who do understand reality and reason, and especially attacking those on the HOA Board of Directors who fairly represent all owners.

The foregoing is the strongest expression of opinion in this section of web pages. The remainder focuses on verifiable fact and valid reasoning.

There is nothing wrong with having an opinion in opposition:  We have two samples showing 26% of our HOA membership preferring to not change the CC&R. However, adamant opposition was seeded by two individuals, one of whom carried forward to recruit others into what is now the group which I refer to as the Roofers. Some combination of that single leader and the Roofers have threatened litigation and have initiated an attempt to recall the HOA board. The HOA is now under special stress because reasonable Waterford residents see board service as more of a personal ordeal than a public service.


History and summary of  the proposed CC&R Amendment

The Lake Forest Waterford Owners Association has a Roofing CC&R which permits the Association's Architectural Review Committee to approve use of any roofing material not explicitly prohibited by the CC&R. The CC&R prohibits only one type of roofing:  As originally written in 1988, it expressly prohibited "asphalt shingles". At that time this was understood to mean what is now called "three-tab". When the 1988 CC&Rs were restated in 1999, one word changed, to prohibit "composition shingles" instead of "asphalt shingles". No one recalls asking for this change, it probably was made by the Association's attorney based on some consideration from either statutory law or case law in the 11 years since 1988.

Beginning around 2005 the HOA began to receive inquiries about "dimensional composition" roofing. This was a new product, at least to the Waterford HOA and its architectural approval process. The name "dimensional composition" proved to be difficult to define precisely: It can refer to asphalt shingles that are simply thicker than 3-tab, or it can refer to composite shingles. The type most frequently cited as a high quality composite shingle is Certainteed Presidential TL, a tri-laminated shingle fiberglass base material. Based only on use of the word "composition" in the name "dimensional composition", the HOA concluded at that time that Waterford's strict CC&R prohibition of "composition shingles" applied to it. The HOA did in fact deny two requests for variances from the roofing CC&R, asking to use dimensional composition products in the 2005 - 2007 period. However, it was also clear that "dimensional composition" is not the three-tab material that the original CC&R referred to.  It could be possible to interpret the CC&R prohibition against composition as applying only to asphalt-only shingles, but the HOA chose a conservative position to assume that it covered all "dimensional composition" materials.

By 2007 the HOA was receiving a rising rate of inquiries about permission of dimensional composition. The HOA included one question about this in a survey of the membership whose main purpose was to gather opinion on road maintenance. The question on roofing asked whether the Association should permit use of dimensional composition materials, and if so whether acceptance of any given material should only be subject to the judgment of the Architectural Review Committee, or whether a minimum quality standard for it should be included in the Roofing CC&R.

100 survey responses had definite answers to the dimensional composition roofing question. 74 supported acceptance of dimensional composition, 26 opposed it. Of the 74 responses in support, slightly more than half supported writing a minimum quality standard into the CC&Rs in addition to the usual requirement for approval by the Architectural Review Committee.

The HOA formed a Roofing Committee near the end of 2007 to explore the issue further and to advise the Board of Directors. Ultimately the Board drafted a proposed CC&R amendment and submitted it to a vote of the Membership in 2009. The vote again showed 74% support among 216 ballots returned, with 160 in favor of the amendment and 56 opposed. However, in our 393-member HOA it is necessary to receive 297 "Yes" votes to adopt a CC&R amendment.

The amendment was not adopted due to receiving too few ballots from the Membership to reach an absolute majority of Yes votes. The number of ballots returned was in fact barely higher (by 19 votes) than the number representing a majority (197 votes). However, the vote results affirmed the initial survey results at a higher level of confidence, again showing 74% support. That result is valid as an additional opinion survey.

In 2010 the Board and the Association's attorney undertook a full restatement of the HOA's governing documents:  CC&Rs, Bylaws, and Articles of Incorporation. This was to bring all governing documents into compliance with changes in law made subsequent to the 1999 restatement. In submitting the restated CC&Rs to a vote of the membership, the Board recognized the high percentage of support among Waterford Owners for the roofing amendment and submitted it again as a separate choice on the ballot.

Results of that ballot are now in, showing that the Roofers' advocacy has shifted some combination of community opinion and election turnout, with results showing 94 votes in support of the amendment and 104 opposed. My personal concern is that the Roofers' repetition of of falsehoods is causing members of the public to believe they are true.

Details of the Roofers' consideration of the issue are unclear:  It has operated privately, possibly even covertly. Our first indication that such a group existed was through an attorney which it retained. In contrast, the HOA has a three-year history of conducting all business on this roofing amendment publicly, in open-session Board meetings and in a Roofing Committee whose meetings were open to all members. The Roofing Committee itself was composed of Waterford Owners who answered a request published in our newsletter to seek volunteer participation.

Read Authorship Statement
Return to SierraFoot Home Page