NO LEGAL REVIEW: POHOA Passes 2 Policies Neither Recommended Nor Reviewed by HOA Attorney

The Poudre Overlook Board was tense and terse throughout the 11/14/23 Board Meeting, snapping at two of the homeowners who were commenting several times, including myself. While there are details to share in a full review of the meeting, the most interesting fact revealed about the two policies that were passed by unanimous vote (Small Sales Event Policy & Home Occupation Policy) was the result of Mr. Denenberg asking whether the policies were recommended by our HOA Attorney, Moeller Graf.

The response was dodgy, but after I followed up with clarifying questions (which President Ballweber was visibly angry about), we heard that the Board “drew the policies mostly from the CCRs” (which Ms. Gloria Jones reiterated in a separate comment, indicating her participation), but also, vaguely, from state law and county code. Pressed for a direct answer, they finally admitted that they had Moeller Graf review our CCRs, and they did NOT recommend creating these policies. Nor did they draft them.

Then who did?

The Board. We’ve seen this movie before. In September of 2022, the POHOA Board rushed through passage of policies that were necessary for compliance with HB22-1139 and some other new state laws. The same question was asked, and President Ballweber retorted to me at that time that they were created “by an attorney”,. but would not disclose who because “you wouldn’t like the answer.”

Sounds like, once again, we have homeowner-attorneys drafting our policies.

When Dr. Tunna joined the Board in December of 2022, he recognized that those policies were wholly insufficient to be compliant with the new laws. And, when the Board decided to take legal action against the homeowners over the “dog incident” (which is still ongoing), they found that if they didn’t pass proper policies (drafted by a real HOA attorney), they would be unable to pursue enforcement against the dog owners.

Looks like we will probably have to revisit these policies again.

Case in point: One homeowner raised the point that requiring family-only to run garage sales after the homeowner dies might be a burden on the family, who may be out-of-state. The Board hemmed and hawed for 10 minutes about whether “outsiders” should be allowed to run a garage sale. When I was finally called upon to give a comment, I mentioned that many families do not wish to accept the burden of clearing out a house – so they hire an estate sale company to professionally manage such sales.

It appeared that the policy, not written by actual HOA attorneys, failed to even consider this basic commonly known fact about end-of-life issues. So, in one of the few amendments that was allowed to be considered, they created some sort of open-ended means of requesting a variance to this poorly worded policy.

I asked after passage what the actual language of the amendment was, and because we aren’t allowed to record meetings, I tried to capture what President Ballweber blurted out, which something like: “Homeowners shall be free to request special circumstances.”

Director Flanary declared he and the rest of the board as reasonable people who won’t make it hard on anyone, but you have to wonder how that is true when the actual language of the policies passed convey the exact opposite perception.

So, the policy is passed on Garage Sales and applies to everyone, unless you get permission under “special circumstances”, including having sales in less than 4 months if you are moving. The Board didn’t address whether a weekend would include Memorial Day or Labor Day, which is commonly considered “the weekend”, but is not a Friday-Saturday-Sunday. I suppose that you could ask.

Once again, the Board who has “nothing to hide” seemed to rapidly pass a self-written policy without actual legal recommendation or review, and overtly attempted to limit participation, and absolutely refused to answer many questions at the meeting.

This just isn’t how things are supposed to be done.