SR 06:020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

. . I 192, section PUD-85- I -3M for Rosepark HOA if the Board of Directors approved his request. The Board of Directors discussed the matter at length and resolved to again to deny Mr. Fischer's request. Again in part due to the City of Pleasanton ordinance I 192, section PUD-85- I -3M and the HOA's Architectural Guidelines, and there was great concem that the avvning vvould not add to the aesthetic value of the community. Mr. Fischer vvas again informed shortly after via telephone vvith later vvritten confirmat;on requesting that he remove the avvning as soon as possible. Mr. Fischer then requested to meet vvith the Board of Directors at the next meeting to appeal the Board of Director decision and met vvith the Board of Directors in September of 2005. He again requested the Board of Directors reconsider his request. The Board of Directors again expressed concern to Mr. Fischer that the avvning vvould not add to the aesthetic value of the community and the awning vvould encroach on his neighbor's property line. Mr. Fischer's appeal vvas again denied and he vvas again requested to remove the awning. Then on October 12, 2005 the City of Pleasanton Planning Commission informed me that your office would request a vvaiver of ordinance I 192, section PUD-85- I -3M from the City of Pleasant on City Council on Mr. Fischer's behalf. Mr. Fischer is a member of Rosepark HOA and signed an agreen"lent vvhen he purchased his unit stating that he had read the goveming documents (CC&Rs, By-lavvs, Articles of Incorporation, Architectural Guidelines, and the Association's Rules and Regulations), vvould abide by their stipulations, and vvould pay his assessments lavvrully levied by the Board of Directors in accordance vvith the Davis-Stirling Act and the Association's goveming documents. Not only Mr. Fischer has failed to comply vvith these documen'ts but also failed to comply v.rith city ordinance I 192, section PUD-85-l-3M. It is my understanding that this vvaiver is solely for Mr. Fischer's benefit, vvhich is a blatant attempt by Mr. Fischer to override the Board of Director's decision regarding his avvning. Unfortunately Mr. Fischer is mistaken in his assumption that Rosepark HOA and its Board of Directors have no other options in this matter. One of your assistant planners has informed Mr. Fischer's next door neighbor, vvho is directly affected by Mr. Fischer's avvning, that the Association's goveming documents are unenforceable. Please note for the record, that is not the case. Also, the Board of Directors of Rosepark HOA is extremely surprised and frankly, disturbed that you vvould take this action on behaLf of a homeov.'ner in the comn"lunity vvithout the courtesy of fOrJT1al correspondence vvith the community's goven"ling body, v.'hich is only good protocol. This breach in protocol only exacerbates the situation betvveen the homeovvner and the Board OJ Directors. It is the Board OJ Director's contention that Mr. Fischer vvas given full and due process and ample opportunity to present his request vvhich vvas reasonably, thoughtJully, and lav.rfully denied, given the authority granted to the Board OJ Directors by the Davis- Stirling Act and Rosepark BOA's governing docun"lents. Again Mr. Fischer installed the av.rning v.rithout any prior approval in violation OJ ordinance I 192, section PUD-85- I -3M, the HOA's CC&Rs. and Architectural Guidelines. The Board OJ Directors believes that this is a matter betv.reen the Hon"leov.'ner's Association and the homeovvner/member vvhich does not require any action Jrom any outside agency. Although Mr. Fischer has every right to petition his n"lunicipal government for any request; hovvever vvhat Mr.