THIS PAGE IS A WORK IN PROGRESS!
Great leaders emphasize reason, empathy, honesty, integrity and transparency when making decisions.
Does your Board have an established process to work through decisions? Of course you have meetings (see this Board meeting survey), but HOW do you plan, prioritize, synthesize and execute all of the myriad decisions that your community needs to tackle?
Riss v. Angel - 1997 Ruling Excerpt - Supreme Court of Washington State
The court ruled the covenants are binding, but it found the association acted unreasonably in rejecting Plaintiffs' plans. The court concluded that the covenants as written are reasonable, but do not permit the homeowners to impose restrictions more burdensome than those expressed in the covenants. Specifically, the court said that the homeowners could not restrict size, height, and proximity to neighbors beyond the minimum square footage and the maximum height restrictions, and the setback requirements set out in the covenants. The court concluded that paragraph six's discretionary authority to reject proposals on the basis of design cannot be read as including authority to limit "bulk," i.e., size or scale. CP at 1633. The court concluded the association does have wide discretion to control design aesthetics, which the court reasoned included authority to reject, for example, a geodome, A-frame, or Tudor castle. The court also rejected the homeowners' concerns that lot six is special, saying that if special restrictions on a specific lot were desired, the covenants must clearly say so.
The court also concluded that the association acted unreasonably because it rejected Plaintiffs' plans without comparing the width and depth of other homes in the neighborhood to Plaintiffs' proposed residence, failed to thoroughly investigate, and relied upon inaccurate information.
Read Always Ask "WHY?": Are Empathy and Reason YOUR Stars and Stripes?