 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Pilot Point Association of Owners
Pilot Point Residing Project of 2016
2016 Pilot Point Residing Project See our residing web site |
Background Situation:
At the inception of Pilot Point, porches and decks were defined as “limited common areas.” This means that they
are not owned by the owner of the unit to which they are attached, but by the condo association as a whole.
They are called “limited” because their use is limited to that of the owner of the attached unit. It does not matter
that this makes little sense. The condo documents were drafted in this way, and that is how the plans of our units
are registered in Georgetown.
Since the inception of Pilot Point, the Executive Council has maintained a concept of what is architecturally
acceptable and what is not, and they have permitted unit owners to modify and improve the porches and decks
attached to their units according to these standards. Although the condo documents specify that 100% of the
owners must approve such a change (since these areas are owned collectively), this approval was assumed to
have been obtained by the acquiescence (i.e. lack of objection) of the owners after such a change was made.
No process was ever put in place to register these changes officially in Georgetown. Under this approach,
numerous unit owners have enclosed their porches and their decks.
Recently, the Executive Council filed a lawsuit after modifications were made to a limited common area (a deck)
that they felt violated their concept of the architectural standards of Pilot Point. In brief, the judge ruled that in
the absence of a written architectural standard he would not force the deck in question to be removed.
However, his ruling did not stop there. After reviewing our condo documents during the course of this trial, he
ruled that acquiescence is not an acceptable manner of achieving 100% ratification of changes to common
areas. He stated that written approval by 100% of the owners is required. Therefore, while the deck in question
would not be removed, no new modification of any common area would be permitted. Should such a modification
be made without 100% written approval of the owners and be contested, he would rule that it must be removed.
In closing, the judge admonished Pilot Point that if we wished to avoid chaos, we would need to develop a written
architectural standard.
Why does this matter?
1) Unit’s Common Areas have been modified: In the case where a unit owner (or prior owner) has modified a
limited common area, these changes were never registered with Georgetown and are not actually “owned” by the
owner of the unit to which they are attached. This means that they may not be rebuilt should they be destroyed
or damaged. Furthermore, under the new DUCIOA real estate law, the lack of ownership is something that must
be disclosed in the sale or remortgaging of the property, and may result in a lost sale or refused mortgage.
Furthermore, since these modifications were never ratified by 100% of the owners, they are subject to challenge
and, in theory, a judge could rule that they must be removed and the unit restored to its original design.
2) Unit’s Common Areas have never been modified: As it currently stands, no part of any limited common area
can now be modified without 100% written approval of all owners at Pilot Point. In addition, without written
architectural standards, it will be virtually impossible to achieve this approval. With architectural standards
approved by the owners of Pilot Point, an owner has a better chance of approval if they can state that they are
not proposing anything that is not permitted by the standards.
Path Forward:
The first step in resolving all of these issues is to develop architectural standards for Pilot Point. Also critical is to
establish a path to approve and register past modifications, and a process to approve new requests for
modifications.
Toward this end, the Pilot Point Architectural Standards Committee was formed at a meeting on Saturday,
September 26, 2009. The purpose of the committee is to research the issues involved and develop a proposed
set of architectural standards for the community. The committee will then present these standards to the condo
association at the annual meeting for consideration. The condo association can then decide either to accept,
reject, or to modify the proposal.
The members of the committee are
Co-chair Doug Harrell #8
Co-chair Mike Harkins #36
Secretary Ed Makowski #1
Members:
Roberte Makowski #1
Dave Hoag #59
Ron Lee #19
Sam Burke #40
Suzanne Baxter #9
Joe Austred #10
Mary Austred #10
Frank Brzoska #15
Kathleen Brzoska #15
Jane Larson #16
Gail Tolpin #26
Gene Tolpin #26
Vince D’Anna #53