The Architectural Control Committee last held an open meeting on 5/27/19, which was infamous because both myself and another homeowner, Andrew Campbell, recorded the meeting. This set off Walker Flanary, who was then both Chair of that Committee, as well as the HOA President by the time the next meeting occurred on 6/13/19, which was held in his basement. It was at that meeting that President Flanary attempted to force my wife and I to turn over our cell phones and my wife’s purse as a condition of participating in that Special Board Meeting. When I refused, he threatened to have me arrested for “trespassing”, which, of course, was an odd thing to do to the Secretary who was merely trying to solve the problem of differing Directors disagreeing on what was said or done at meetings. A recording was the means of having accurate and objective reality be the basis for the meeting.
Since the Summer of 2019, all HOA Meetings have been at neutral locations. This has included the City of Fort Collins Senior Center, the City of Fort Collins Aztlan Center, various locations in our open field (during the Summer/Fall of 2022), and now at Me Oh My, a small coffee shop at the main intersection of Laporte, CO.
Prior to 2019, from 2004 through the end of 2018, all HOA meetings had basically been private affairs. While some homeowners had been personally invited to some meetings (if they complained, in particular, about Board secrecy), for the most part, HOA meetings were held without any notice, without any invitation for participation, and without much structure. Adoption of the use of Robert’s Rules of Order was fought hard by Directors Gloria Jones and Walker Flanary in the Spring of 2019. Only after their removal on 8/27/19 did we begin to strictly follow the requirement to use Robert’s Rules of Order in our meetings.
So, today’s meeting was a bit of an ongoing experiment to hold HOA meetings in an open business where the general public is in the same space. The first to be held at Me Oh My was the Landscape Committee Meeting held at 8am on 2/21/24, which was a Wednesday. I arrived that morning and was the only person in the coffee shop until the members of that Committee arrived just before it started. A space in the back, separated from the counter, allowed for semi-privacy, but the music playing overhead made it difficult to hear – particularly when Chairperson Gloria Jones refused to allow me to sit at the same table – even though there were just 3 committee persons and myself attending this meeting. Whether appropriate or not, it was awkward.
Today, I could not attend the meeting myself, so my wife, Debbie attended.
When Debbie arrived at Me Oh My for the 9am meeting, it was much busier than when I attended the meeting on 2/21. She took a seat in the back room where the Landscape Committee met the last time, but no one from POHOA was there until almost exactly 9am. Of course, the first order of business was . . . hot chocolate. The Architectural Control Committee purportedly has 5 members, but at this meeting, it was Lora Ballweber, Walker Flanary, and Clay Jones in attendance. This is basically the POHOA Board, without Lora’s husband Jeffrey, and minus myself, depending one whether your recognize my self-nomination and proxy vote valid in the 12/5/23 election.
It appears that, once again, getting anyone else in the HOA to participate is exceedingly difficult for this POHOA Board. And, while Lora Ballweber attempted to scapegoat me during her 1/2/24 testimony to the HOA Homeowners Rights Task Force, the fact of the matter is that this meeting was not really announced or promoted – other than a passive addition to the FrontSteps website calendar, which almost no one in the neighborhood knows about or visits.
The notice was only posted 2 days prior to the meeting on Saturday March 9th. I only became aware because, much to my surprise, I had requested that POHOA follow the requirements of CCIOA and our governing documents, and EMAIL me with notices about meetings. Of course, their email was only about the 3/19/24 Special Homeowners Meeting, which is an attempt to re-do the invalid election on 12/5/23 – a topic of a future post.
I usually check the POHOA Calendar several times per week, as the POHOA Boards that have been in control of our HOA governance since 2020 absolutely refuse to give us advanced notice about meetings in a way that promotes or allows for greater participation. You almost have to catch them having a meeting, which indicates that the practices from 2004-2019 were a deliberate coordinated action to avoid transparency.
This wasn’t a hidden conspiracy. When I brought up the requirement for Open Meetings (Compliance with the Colorado Open Meetings Act and CCIOA) in November of 2018 with Walker Flanary and Irve Denenberg, they openly scoffed at the idea. “Nothing would get done” was the rationale offered by Mr. Flanary, to which I said – if it can’t done in the open, then perhaps it should not be done at all!
So, for this morning’s meeting, if you didn’t happen to log into the Frontsteps website on Saturday or Sunday, you would have no idea at all – until I sent a broadcast email to the homeowners who remain subscribed to our email list. They didn’t even bother to use the “Sandwich Board” to announce the meeting at the entrance to the neighborhood.
So, while the POHOA Board is attempting to bamboozle the HOA Task Force with claims that this blog somehow reduces or prevents participation, what is clearly happening is that participation is being reduced by these actual factors within their control:
- Insufficient Notice Publication (barely 2 days in advance)
- Notice only passively posted on a website no one visits
- A refusal to use email or text mail notifications about meetings*
- Physical notice only when they want people to show up at meetings (Sandwich Boards)
- Having meetings at inconvenient times (like 9am on a Monday)
- Refusal to use Electronic Access (Zoom, Conference Call, etc) for Remote Participation
Each of these elements contribute to low to non-existent participation. But, in sum, they’ve resulted in meetings were my wife and I are often the only people that show up. Suffice to say that their claim of a reduction in participation being caused principally or even partially because I fill the gap to create some transparency when they actively work against transparency is pure rubbish.
So, back to the meeting, which was clearly just an annoying formality because they can’t go back to the “good ole days” before 2019, when they’d just do all this in secret.
They ultimately chose not to sit in the back room where Debbie was sitting. Instead, the chose the now-crowded space near the front counter of a busy coffee shop. Deb was directed to sit away from the Directors, which made it impossible to hear over the noise of not only other customers, but also the use of a coffee grinder and espresso machine that drowned out the overall cacophony of the room when fired up. Debbie had to ask them to repeat themselves multiple times.
The first order of business was on the agenda – a hot tub show as a “request” on the agenda.
The thing is, it’s not really a “request”. Some homeowner installed a hot tub at some point in the past. And, my guess is that someone either spied into their backyard and/or snitched on them. We have quite a few of those. And, as a result, they are being forced to get approval for installing a hot tub in arrears.
Here’s the section that pertains to hot tubs in the Landscaping Guidelines.
The ACC (which is really the POHOA Board) said they would have to do a site visit. It did not appear that the homeowners subjected to this were at the meeting. It is unknown if they were given notice or an opportunity to participate. It seems that photos would have moved this along quicker.
There were two other items that did not appear on the agenda.
One item was privacy shield, the other a shed.
This privacy shield was discussed and the rules in the Landscaping Guidelines are:
While this appears to be a hard rule on the height of fencing at a total of 5′ tall, the issue has come up previously. One home on the North side of the neighborhood received approval to have a 6′ fence on top of a modified grade to hide views of yards they felt were ugly in the neighboring Stagecoach subdivision. That neighborhood has no HOA, and one lot has half a dozen cars parked in the back yard like a junkyard (or did). When Irve Denenberg was Chair of the ACC in 2018, he attempted to force the removal of this fence under threat of fines.
The homeowners, however, fought back with proof that it was a condition of their original purchase contract, which had approval of the prior Board. The lack of POHOA records on prior approvals has come up from time to time, with new Directors and Committee Members trying to enforce rules on previously approved elements.
This is not to mention that Larimer County Code allows fences of up to 8′ in height. And, while serving on the Board in 2019, a real estate agent pointed out that a home on Headwater was difficult to sell because the neighbors could see each other clearly from each other’s kitchens. Because there is a drainage between the two homes, a 5′ fence isn’t tall enough to give privacy. Several potential buyers stopped considering the home when they were told by Mr. Flanary’s POHOA Board (as President) that a variance would not be considered.
When the subject of variances in the grading were considered, it might be more important to allow a taller fence, both Walker Flanary and Irve Denenberg have taken an absolute position that 5′ fences are a hard limit because it would turn us into “stockyards” or some other inappropriate metaphor.
A key consideration is the fact that the Landscape Guidelines actually encourage privacy. So, it would be a better approach to consider all factors, including the overall grading of a property, to achieve the privacy that then increases home values. Taking a hard line over an arbitrary number isn’t being a good Director, it’s actually acting in a manner that harms home values.
The other item was the construction of a Shed. This has come up several times, and basically, our Guidelines say that you have to build it with pretty much the same materials that the homes were originally constructed. Pre-fabricated sheds are routinely rejected. And, while these rules seem difficult and create extra expense, they have pretty much been enforced uniformly.
While there is perhaps some room for a variance of some sort, it is unlikely that this request will be approved unless it is built to these specs.
The meeting was overall short – about 20 minutes, and nothing beyond these 3 approvals was discussed.