Law Educator, Esq.This is follow up to the advice you offered based on an issue I have at a location in Colorado. I copied the latest email correspondence between you and I. It has been a while but I will spend the month of May in Durango, CO pursuing this issues and do need further help.I have spoken to a number of home owners and have located an area where a lot can be located with minimum concern to most existing homes. As you suggested the plan is to secure agreement thru a resolution(not sure this is the correct term) that I will personally take to each homeowner
and ask them to sign. Plan is to secure the 67% of signatures as discussed below.It turns out that in 2005 the development ( 100 - 1 acre lots on a 950 acre ranch) had a surveyor prepare a revised Platt that was taken to the County for approval. This revision was based on the actual home locations vs the original Platt building envelope for each lot. In one particular instance the homeowner actually built completely off his lot location. With this precedent set I am hopeful that I can get this agreed.What I need is your help in preparation of the "resolution" that must be signed by the 67% of homeowners. I can plot the location on that specific section of the existing Platt which can be attached. Can you help with this request?Joe
For Roger, Hi Roger, It has been a while...
For Roger, Hi Roger, It has been a while since I contacted you and wanted to give you an update on my issue of rockfall at Falls Creek Ranch in Durango, Colorado. I have been attending the Board meetings and have met with an attorney in Durango discussing
path forward. Based on a Colorado statuteour thinking of the path forward is to solicit 67% of the homeowners signature in an effort to move the lot to a different location on the ranch. This seems a more peaceful alternative than to threaten a lawsuit. There
are a few locations where we would try to get concurrence from the homeowners nearest the location we would want to ask to be moved. We could proceed on to continue to get signatures on a resolution or go back to the Board at that point and ask for their endorsement.
The Board has said in the past that they did not want to set a precedent by allowing this and that they could not take common property and exchange for private property. The Ranch platt has been revised in the 1990 timeframe and it show that properties have
been moved. There are new Board members from those of the past but these were the comments from the previous Board. The questions are: Do I need to convince the Board to support me and risk a negative response or can I proceed to secure signatures from at
least 67% of the homeowners? Do I need Board support and endorsement?
03 November 2015 07:1506 November 2015 10:33
Law Educator, Esq. Law Educator, Esq.Real Estate
Thank you for your question. I look forward to working with you to provide you the information you are seeking for educational purposes only.Only you know the personalities of the board. The board can agree to this in the best interests of the association
without you getting 67% of the members to sign and agree to the move. If you do not think you can get the current board to agree, then approaching them would not be productive, you have to feel that out, and the best approach is getting the 67% and then forcing the board to act on the matter. You essentially have a second chance here too because if you cannot get the 67%, you can still take your final option of suing them in court, which is what you are trying to avoid.