October 26, 2015 - 5:30pm - 7:30pm 162 CEDAR RIDGE ROAD, ZAPATA SUBDIVISION
Minutes of the governance committee of the Zapata Homeowners’ Association
The governance committee of the Zapata Homeowners’ Association met shortly after 5:30 p.m. Oct. 26, 2015, at the home of its chairman, Erin Smith, 162 Cedar Ridge Road.
Present were John White, Tyra Barnes, Nancy Starling Ross and Erin Macgillivray Smith.
Topic of discussion was the covenants. At the last meeting, we decided that we should come up with a plan with steps we want to take and when. It was decided that we begin with a bullet point list of why we need to change the covenants. Then review the 2009 proposed covenants, and review the appertaining statute.
The committee came up with the following:
ZHA Covenant Rewrite – Reasons for a Change
- There are two sets of covenants (1975 and 1981) that deal with the Zapata Subdivision. Over the years the ZHA has been given varying legal opinions on how these covenants should be applied to the property owners. To mitigate risk of lawsuits against the ZHA, one set of covenants should be developed to replace the 1975 and 1981 covenants.
- The current covenants refer to infrastructure that never was and will never be implemented in the Zapata Subdivision and do not accurately reflect the water rights of the ZHA. Examples include: a. Water/sewage system b. RV Lots c. Servants’ quarters d. Prohibition of trailers
- The covenants have broad statements that can and have had varying interpretations. Additionally, the 1975 and 1981 covenants are not consistent. Examples include: a. Trailers b. Permanent versus temporary habitation c. The method of how to change the covenants
- The covenants are in violation of Colorado state law and no reference is made to the Colorado Statutes. a. Discrimination clause b. Others?
- The current covenants should refer to a Fire Mitigation/Healthy Forest Plan.
- New covenants should clarify the use of assessments and dues to bring the statement into compliance with the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and policies.
Other questions: • Should setbacks be in the covenants and/or in the architectural guidelines or neither (and let the Alamosa County zoning restrictions speak for setbacks)? • Should square footage requirements be in the covenants and/or architectural guidelines? • Do we need a detailed legal description of the subdivision boundaries in the covenants or can we just refer to the plat maps?
The next meeting will be Dec. 8 at which time we are to bring notes on needed covenant changes.
Nancy Starling Ross and Erin Macgillivray Smith