Board of Directors
Regular Meeting
MAY 3, 2004

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 introduced themselves.

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 people".

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 camera(s).

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 Report.

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 interest rates.

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 to inspect.

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 the vote.

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