Choice of 2 or 3 depends on the source of the assertion and the date of the assertion.
The Board extended the deadline once because we recognized a mailing problem that left an unknown number of Owners without ballots. Remailing, then extending the deadline to vote was done to assure that all Owners had a reasonable opportunity to vote.
Additionally, by the time of the single extension the Association had not received enough ballots to pass a CC&R amendment even if 100% of the votes had been in favor. The issue was one of legal quorum, not of recognizing valid opinion of the Owners as a whole.
Variances are instance-specific and are not precedents for ARC approvals. This is stated explicitly in CC&R Section 5.11 in the 1999 restatement of the CC&Rs.
From context in this assertion and from other communications it appears that the local and national developer cited in the assertion is one who I had contacted by telephone. His most important comment was that choice of roofing on any single house does not affect the values of other nearby homes. He also indicated that his studies for new-construction markets do not apply to resale markets.
The single omission in question was carefully considered before the survey was sent to appraisers and was left in place as a measure to reduce possible bias in responses. The Association exercised exceptional diligence in reviewing and updating drafts of this survey.
The Board was fully engaged on this issue well before the document in question was approved and circulated. Also during this period, one Member of the Association and of the minority in the Roofing Committee was flooding the Association with email. The volume was so high that it was not feasible to respond to those incoming comments, the only possible prudent action was to note the messages and file them for reference if needed.
The vote of the residents was 160 out of 216, not out of 393. This assertion demonstrates lack of understanding of the difference between a sample set and a population in the mathematical disciplines of probability and statistics. These are not esoteric concepts, they are typically taught in week 1 of any course in probability and statistics.
The assertion is correct in the sense that the preceding CC&R vote did not produce an absolute majority of the actual population. It is incorrect in its failure to recognize a 74% majority of either sample set. Taking 0.74 as an Estimator, the two currently available sample sets demonstrate zero Error and zero Bias. The words Estimator, Error, and Bias are used here as they are formally defined in probability and statistics.
I have no personal recollection of the Board having ever given such a "can't remember" answer for this question to a Member. My corresponding question to those who ask this question is "Why to you continue asking the question? The Board has repeatedly stated the answer above with sufficient clarity for it to be undestood."
A further suggestion that subsequent use of dimensional composition roofing in Stonegate had harmed its property values also was denied.
A check covering 2009-2010 showed that property values for Stonegate have been higher than those for Waterford as measured by the customary metric of dollars per square foot for actual sales.
"We do not want to be the only village in Lake Forest that allows for "Composition Roofs".
This implicitly asserts that no village other than Waterford is considering acceptance of "Composition Roofs".
Extrapolation of the rate of composition roofs in that sample to the full set of lots in Lake Forest Estates produces an estimate of about 205 composition roofs in that village.
Marina Village has a relatively small number of high-quality dimensional composition roofs. Lakeridge Oaks has approximately 12 high quality dimensional composition roofs in a community of just over 50 home.
Checks of property values at the beginning of December, 2010 showed that all of these villages had higher property values than Waterford, and that had been generally true through 2009 and 2010.
4 villages in the Lake Forest peninsula area have CC&Rs with a clause to strictly prohibit composition shingles.
4 villages in this area have CC&Rs which specifically permit dimensional composition roofing, subject to ACC approval and in some cases to minimum quality requirements in a roofing CC&R.
7 villages in this area have CC&Rs with no explicit reference to composition roofing. Any regulation of composition roofing in these villages is by ACC approval and possibly by Architectural Rules.
Since I am not at this time a director I am not permitted to comment publicly based on information outside of publicly accessible Association Records. The most I can note from public information is
- The major source of cost is legal expense. (Noted in past discussion at open-session board meetings.)
- The legal budget for 2010 was set at $9,300, with this year's budget accounting for the major expense of completely restating Waterford's governing documents: Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and CC&Rs. The restatement is unrelated to the roofing issues. In the 2010 election the proposed roofing amendment was included in the election as an item to be adopted or rejected independently from the overall restatement. The same cost would have been incurred without the roofing amendment and the cost allocation was fundamentally for the restatement.
As a past board member I am not uniformed and I have no personal knowledge of how to account for the claimed expenditures. It is difficult to postulate anything except that the original source of this claim was either a lie or an ad hominem delusion.
The reference to denial is intended to refer to denial of an application for Architectural Review Committee approval. This confuses the ARC application process with the separate process of board response to a Member's request for a CC&R variance.
In the Lakehills Estates area immediately north of Waterford I walked enough of that development to check roofing type on 108 homes. 84 used composition roofing. Of those, 75 used products of lower quality than would have been permitted by Waterford's proposed CC&R amendment. Lakehills Estates property values at that time were higher than Waterfords, using both dollars per square foot and dollars per home sale metrics. Web-accessible statistics showed that relationship to have been the case for most of the past 2 years.
The writers of this statement approached the board only after Ray Myers had approached an attorney and raised the possibility of litigation. The public should understand that our legal system tends to produce legal direction to highly restrict communication on matters subject to potential litigation. This is especially true of involvement with potential litigants.
Public discussion would be at risk of harmful degradation by raising these assertions openly; answers could be harmful to both the author(s) of the assertion and those targeted by the assertions. Consequently I decline to raise these as public issues: No one's reputation should be at risk in an honest public debate that answers questions strictly germane to the issues.