Board of Directors
MAY 3, 2004
CALL TO ORDER
President Chuck Baker called the regular meeting of the Lake Moovalya
Keys Board of Directors to order at 6:05 p.m., and all guests
President: Chuck Baker
Vice President: Chris Chambers
Board Members: Bill Risen, Bob Stroud, Trish Wikoff, Russ Derby,
Jack Sweeney, Joe Price, Gary Svider, Joe Maxwell, Tonya McPherson
Guests: Barbara Risen (lot 184); Al McPherson (lot 070); Squeak
& Lauri Burke (lot 122); Campbell Hanen (lot 221); Kyle &
Denell Vestermark (lot 222); Jack O'Connell (lot 231)
Legal Counsel: John C. Churchill
Bookkeeper/Recording Secretary: Sue Thomson
The Board members reviewed the April regular Board meeting Minutes
and the April 10 Annual Meeting Minutes.
Mr. Price made a motion to approve the April
2004 Regular Board Meeting Minutes and the April 10 Annual Board
Meeting as presented. The motion was seconded and carried.
Mr. Baker reviewed the March financials and the current bank balances.
Ms. Thomson is to follow up with Mr. Dearcos regarding our arrangement
with him for lawn care services, confirming that the arrangement
is that he be paid only $60 per visit for lawn and weed care.
Mr. Svider questioned an upcoming water bill reimbursement for
the neighbor's water used during the annual meeting preparation.
Ms. Thomson stated that she is not aware of anything being presented
for reimbursement as of this time. Mr. Stroud had a question regarding
items in the Repairs & Maintenance:Misc. account, and that
the Board was to get more detail on items purchased under this
account. Ms. Thomson stated that she did provide a breakdown to
the best of her knowledge, but that she would be more diligent
in breaking down items posted to this account in the future. Mr.
Price stated that what he did receive was, in fact, what he had
previously requested. Mr. Sweeney questioned invoices submitted
through Mr. DiNolfi's petty cash account for miscellaneous cleanup,
in that there was no mention as to who performed the clean-up
services. Ms. Thomson stated that she has twice questioned Mr.
DiNolfi about such non-specific clean-up invoices, and twice was
told by Mr. DiNolfi they were for performed by unspecified "street
Mr. Price made a motion to approve all prepaid
bills with the exception of Guy DeArcos' bill. The motion was
seconded and carried.
Ms. Thomson read her April Bookkeeper's Report,
reporting on the final cost tally for the annual meeting; the
attempted location of the computer file for the CC&R's; and
the homeowner list sent to Kenneth Beard (lot 108). She also reported
the reimbursement of $1,400 from Buckskin Sanitary District for
the asphalt patch on Apache & Papago; the collection status
of trash service assessments to the Vista del Monumento owners;
delinquent homeowner accounts; April financials; lots in escrow;
lots with new ownership. Ms. Thomson also updated the Board on
current construction deposits, and she requested a status report
on those projects. Mr. Derby was requested to review all construction
projects in which deposits are being held to ascertain if any
funds need to be returned at this time.
Mr. Baker discussed Mr. DiNolfi's April 30
resignation as General Manager, as well as his subsequent telephone
conversation with Mr. DiNolfi, in which Mr. DiNolfi related his
recent frustrations and his recent confrontation with Mr. Derby.
Mr. Baker announced that if anyone knows of someone who might
be interested in the General Manager's position, please let the
Board know. Mr. Derby stated that we need someone who would be
willing to do more patrolling, and that we need to get the re-striping
done as soon as possible. Mr. Chambers stated that he is working
on getting this project lined out. Mr. Baker asked Mr. Derby to
briefly describe to the Board what transpired with his confrontation
with Mr. DiNolfi, and Mr. Derby explained that there was a difference
of opinion as to how the people who did the damage to the gate
were dealt with; specifically, Mr. DiNolfi handled the matter
on his own, refusing to identify the persons to the Board, telling
Mr. Derby it's not the Board members' business and that the person
who damaged the gate in the amount of $600 is going to make restitution
directly to him, and he would deal with the repair bill directly
with the vendor. Mr. Derby told Mr. DiNolfi that he worked for
the Board, not vice versa. Mr. Derby told the Board that he felt
Mr. DiNolfi should have been generally more available. Mr. Churchill
stated that when he asked Mr. DiNolfi about the gate incidents,
Mr. DiNolfi told him that although he was able to view the vehicle
in the first gate incident and speak with the suspected perpetrators,
he was unable to focus on the license plate. Mr. Churchill stated
that we should refine the camera to zoom in better on details.
Mr. Sweeney stated that the cameras at the in-gate are set at
a wide angle, and that the cameras at the out-gate are set to
zoom in on license plates, but that Mr. DiNolfi had moved it,
and it's out of focus. Mr. Baker stated that we have previously
caught on tape two other perpetrators, so we need to refocus the
Squeak reported that he and two other homeowners
attempted to fix the gate after it was broken. Two women in a
green van reported the license plate number to Mr. DiNolfi, and
two female guests of one of the homeowners were responsible for
the second incident to the gate. Ms. Wikoff asked if a motion
light should be installed at the gate to assist in the cameras'
functionality. Mr. Sweeney stated this wasn't necessary, as there
is plenty of light at night; we just need to properly focus the
cameras. Mr. McPherson stated that the Board might consider getting
a longer lens to improve focal points; that if a light were installed
with a longer focal lens, it would work. We just need to refine
what we have.
Mr. Baker reviewed the April General Manager's
Mr. Vestermark took the floor regarding his
original plan approval, and he stated that he doesn't know if
further approval is needed before he proceeds with construction,
as nothing has changed since his plan was submitted in January.
Mr. Baker stated that this project (the former Denton building)
was for a teardown of the garage area, and that Mr. Vestermark
needed Board approval. He stated that setbacks are an issue and
that some of the Riverside lots are zoned commercial, and some
lots have been rezoned to residential (R-1), with some R-1's having
a zero lot line. Mr. Baker stated that the County requires a variance,
compliance with fire regulations, and bedroom exit access to be
approved for a zero setback with an R-1 zoning. Mr. Churchill
stated that commercial (C-2) lots are for commercial use only,
but that if you occupy the building to manage the business, this
is okay. If it's just a residence, the property needs to be zoned
residential, and the CC&R's address specific use in this regard.
Mr. Vestermark stated that his plans were
approved by the Association in January; that he rezoned the property
from commercial to residential in late 2003; and that his situation
falls under existing, non-conforming regulations. Mr. Stroud stated
that was before the garage wall was torn down. Mr. Churchill stated
that it was also before our knowledge of how the property was
zoned. Mr. Hanen asked about Neil Kleine's (lot 223) structure
and his zoning. Mr. Vestermark stated that he took down 36% of
the structure and nothing was changed from the original drawings.
Mr. Baker stated that we could end up with
a whole block of residential zoning with zero lot lines, which
raises fire-hazard issues. Mr. Churchill stated that this doesn't
contemplate walls, either commercial or residential, and compliance
with respective requirements. Mr. Baker stated this issue came
up with the Wimpy's lot line, and they wouldn't allow the adjacent
property owner to build on a zero lot line. Mr. Churchill reported
that the Uniform Commercial Code calls for much stricter regulations
because buildings are closer together, which closeness increases
the fire hazard. He explained that residences aren't as restrictive
because there are setbacks; that homes placed further apart have
the advantage of a firebreak. Mr. Chambers stated that a 5' setback
would serve no real purpose.
Mr. O'Connell took the floor, stating that
when he constructed his commercial project, he had to comply with
all the zero setback regulations; that now he has a 5' setback
on his house, and there should not be a deviation for others.
Mr. Vestermark stated that the County asked
him to rezone, because he tore down more than 25% of the existing
structure. The County then lost his drawings, and he was unaware
of the water damage that accumulated over several years. So his
teardown was due to prior water and structural damage. A FEMA
inspection letter states an appraiser needs to assess the occupancy
ratio in order to maintain non-conforming status. Mr. Churchill
restated the reasons for the stricter regulations for a commercially
zoned, zero-lot line structure. Mr. Baker stated that most people
re-zone to residential in order to take advantage of lower loan
Mr. Stroud stated that pre-existing structures
prevail, but if it's torn down, then it's no longer pre-existing.
Mr. Vestermark stated that the north-bearing wall between him
and Neil Kleine was still standing, but it had to come down because
of the damage, and that he checked the federal laws on the subject.
More than 75% of the work is done, and he needs to frame out the
garage. He stated that the County will be coming out tomorrow
Mr. Baker asked Mr. Hanen about his property
setbacks, and Mr. Hanen stated that he has a 3' non-conforming
on one side; otherwise, it is conforming.
Mr. Baker asked Mr. Churchill the status of the letters to the
owners of Lots 9 and 10, regarding overgrown vegetation and the
roof on the lot 10 structure. Mr. Churchill stated the letters
have been dictated but not transcribed due to his legal assistant's
broken collarbone. He stated that the letter to the Bozemans regarding
their dog has likewise been dictated but not processed.
Mr. Churchill reported on the Berge matter,
stating that Berge's attorney called for him today, but he did
not have an opportunity to return the call prior to the meeting.
Regarding Brooke Water, he is waiting for the legal description
from the engineer. Regarding the Kenko funds, he will follow up
with his legal assistant to see if that letter has been processed.
Mr. Baker stated that he has not received any negative feedback
on the annual meeting format, and no one else present reported
any negative feedback.
Mr. Svider reported that he has finalized
his proposal for rules and fines, and this matter is ready to
set in motion. Mr. Churchill stated that written notice has to
be given to all homeowners of the meeting at which the proposed
rules and fines will be voted on; that the room should be large
enough to accommodate all persons interested in participating
in the meeting, and that the notice shall be specific in stating
that the purpose of the meeting is for the adoption of rules.
Mr. Baker stated he would like to schedule a workshop so the Board
members can determine if the proposed rules and fines are appropriate.
Mr. Stroud inquired as to who is going to enforce the CC&R's
in the absence of a general manager. Mr. McPherson suggested two
meetings, one for renter issues and one for proposed changes to
general rules. Mr. Baker stated he wanted to schedule the workshop
before the next regular board meeting, so the Board members can
formulate a plan and proceed. Mr. McPherson stated we should have
the plan in place before we notice the meeting in which the rules
and fines will be proposed for adoption.
Mr. Baker discussed the need for guard service
during the Memorial Day holiday. Ms. Wikoff inquired if we are
going to find a different service than we had last year. Mr. Risen
stated he had an offer from the Reservation. Mr. Baker stated
that using the Reservation would be more expensive. Mr. Baker
delegated this project to Mr. Risen, specifically to inquire whether
or not the Indians can serve as peace officers. Mr. Risen was
asked to report back to Mr. Baker. There was a general consensus
that we need to have guard service for the holiday.
Mr. Svider reported that he has gathered information
on 4" reflective address numbers for the canal side of houses.
Mr. Svider spoke with Charlie Philpot with Buckskin Fire, and
we have several options for the best number format to assure prompt
location of houses. Mr. Svider stated that he received a quote
for a minimum order of 25 sets of numbers at $7.50 per set. Mr.
Derby inquired where these numbers would be installed. Mr. McPherson
stated that he thought this process was voluntary, with Mr. Baker
confirming that it is voluntary, but as a matter of safety, we
are urging homeowners to post their numbers. Mr. Baker stated
we could suggest to homeowners a place to put the numbers and
assist them with installation. Ms. Thomson suggested that a notice
to homeowners regarding street numbers could be sent with the
meeting notice regarding the adoption of proposed rules and fines.
Squeak stated that he has access to a sign company in California,
and he will get a price quote. Mr. Churchill having referred to
the CC&R's regarding homeowner meeting notice for the adoption
of proposed rules and fines stated that the Association must give
the homeowners 10-days' notice, from date of mailing to date of
meeting, and that 2/3 of those present at the meeting can make
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Mr. Baker stated that he is not interested in continuing to serve
as President of the Association; that he is burned out. Mr. Baker
asked Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Stroud, Mr. Maxwell, Ms. Wikoff, Mr. Price
and Mr. Chambers if they would like to serve as President, but
those asked were either unwilling or unavailable to serve as President.
Mr. Derby made a motion that the Board elect
the same slate of officers. There being no discussion, the motion
carried, and the same slate of officers were elected: Chuck Baker,
President; Chris Chambers, Vice-President; and Trish Wikoff, Secretary/Treasurer.
Mr. Maxwell offered his services to handle a couple General Manager-related
duties. Mr. Baker stated that the most urgent duty is to police.
Mr. Chambers suggested that as a temporary solution, a Board member
could be designated to police the street he or she lives on. Mr.
Stroud was appointed to be in charge of Navajo Lane and Hopi Drive;
Mr. Chambers and Mr. Sweeney were appointed to be in charge of
Yaqui Loop; Ms. Wikoff, with Squeak volunteering, were appointed
to be in charge of Papago Loop; Mr. Derby was appointed to be
in charge of Apache Loop; and Mr. Price was appointed to be in
charge of Moovalya Drive. Mr. Stroud was asked to run a classified
ad for the General Manager's position, with Ms. Thomson's assistance
in locating the last ad that was run for the position. Mr. Hanen
stated that a job description is needed, and Mr. Baker responded
that we have a job description on file.
Mr. Risen suggested that we offer to pay for
damage repairs to the Sheriff's mobile radar unit. Mr. Chambers
stated the damage resulted from a golf cart carrying five kids
that rolled over onto the unit late one night; Mr. Chambers informed
King of the mishap.
Mr. Risen reported on his next-door neighbor's
house at 8761 Yaqui Loop that sustained recent fire damage. He
inquired whether the Association needs to send a letter to the
homeowner regarding the proposed repairs to put the house back
the way it was before the fire, and whether the Association should
waive the $750 construction deposit. Mr. Churchill stated that
a construction deposit is not needed for interior-only repairs.
Mr. Chambers stated that the repairs are not going to be limited
to the interior, that the roof will need to be torn off and replaced,
as well as trusses replaced. Mr. Risen stated that the matter
is in the hands of the homeowner's insurance company. Mr. Price
stated that if a contractor is involved, then a construction deposit
must be made. Mr. Risen inquired if a letter from the homeowner
would be okay to submit to the Board for this project.
Mr. Hanen inquired about the compensation
for the General Manager's position. Mr. Baker stated the General
Manager is paid $800 per month, plus fuel, to work 20-25 hours
per week in the winter season and more, as needed, in the summer.
Regarding Kenneth Beard's desire to petition
the homeowners for a change of rules regarding the use of RV's
as sleeping quarters, as brought up at the Annual Meeting, Ms.
McPherson inquired whether the Board should take the offensive
in order to set the parameters for this process. Mr. Baker stated
that the Association will not take any action at this time; that
it can set parameters later, as the Association dictates the wording
for any proposed change to the CC&R's. Mr. Churchill reported
that any petition couldn't be sent out for vote without prior
Board discussion. Mr. Baker stated that it took about a year and
a half to get signatures for the last amendment.
Mr. Chambers reported that the gate is down
on Mr. Baker's lot where the annual meeting was held; that it
needs to be screwed back in for safety reasons. Mr. Maxwell was
asked to make the repair.
The regular meeting recessed at 7:15 p.m., with guests being excused.
The Board convened to a closed session for the purpose of discussing
Mr. Vestermark's building situation. The Board reconvened the
regular board meeting at 7:40 p.m.
The excused guests re-joined the meeting,
and Mr. Baker informed Mr. Vestermark of the Board's decision
regarding his request. The majority decision of the Board was
that Mr. Vestermark must either rezone the property back to the
former commercial zoning in order to maintain his zero-lot line,
or he must comply with the 5' setback requirement if he leaves
the property in its present residential zoning, the latter of
which would require his moving the entire subject wall in order
to meet the setback requirement.
Mr. Baker further stated that the rubber stamp
on his previously approved plans states, "Plans approved
as submitted providing all set backs & height limitations…are
adhered to as outlined in Declarations of Restrictions..."
Mr. Churchill stated that Neil Kleine's property was zoned commercial
when his plans were approved. Mr. Vestermark inquired if he would
be in Association compliance if he were to re-zone his property
back to C-2, finish the construction, and then re-zone it back
to R-1. He further stated that the reason for the demolition was
because of the water damage, and the demolition was done via federal
guidelines. Mr. Stroud stated that Mr. Vestermark shouldn't have
changed the zoning to R-1. Mr. Price stated that the Association
has potential liability either way on this issue. Mr. Vestermark
stated that Mr. Kleine was approved for a zero-lot line, C-2,
and could the Association make him comply with a 5' setback. Mr.
Stroud stated that we didn't know about Neil; you just told us.
Mr. Derby stated that if the bedrooms are deleted from the plan,
then Mr. Vestermark should be able to go commercial. Mr. Vestermark
stated that the bedrooms are on exterior walls, with windows,
on the 5' setback side. There are no interior bedrooms. Mr. Stroud
stated that bedrooms are residential, and require the 5'. Mr.
Vestermark asked if the County would allow him to re-zone back
to commercial. Mr. Baker stated that the Association is not approving
any plans until the matter is resolved one way or the other. Mr.
Vestermark stated that he does not want to be held up any further.
Mr. Price stated that's not the Association's problem. Mr. Vestermark
stated that the County might be giving him the green light tomorrow.
The Board told Mr. Vestermark that the zoning process has to be
completed in order for him to be legal to start.
Mr. Churchill stated that this situation arose
because it was brought to the attention of the Board. The Board
was not aware of the zoning at the time (of plan review). Also,
this is the first time this particular situation has arisen. Mr.
Baker stated there are five other buildings with zero lot lines.
Mr. Churchill stated that other homeowners have had to tear down
mere inches on their structures. Mr. Chambers stated that he doesn't
think there's a problem re-zoning the property back to C-2, finishing
the construction, then re-zoning it back to R-1. In response to
Mr. Vestermark's earlier question about whether or not the board
would approve this process, Mr. Price responded by saying that
perhaps a future Board of Directors may make an issue of changing
the zoning back to R-1. Mr. Churchill stated that the recent demolition
and resultant pile of debris piqued the Association's interest
in getting all the facts. Mr. Baker stated that Board members
could be sued as individuals if they don't comply with the CC&R's.
He stated that the Association needs information that Mr. Vestermark's
zoning is going back to commercial, prior to his proceeding with
this project as planned.
The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
Submitted by Recording Secretary, Sue Thomson
APPROVED BY BOARD OF DIRECTORS JUNE 7, 2004