What: Open Board Meeting
When: Saturday August 22, 2026 1:30pm
Where: 1991 W. Barefoot Pl. in the Driveway
Agenda
Review of fencing proposal for 1861 E. Barefoot Pl. and Board vote on the recommendation from the ARC.
Minutes
Attending:
Board members: Flax, Finn, Lehnhardt, Melchiori and Garrard.
SIA Members: Jim Chalkley, Ron and Tammy Lowe, Dave and Diane Wolfram, Denise and David Kneiss, Ann and Ed Seemann, Doug Stanford
Meeting was called to order at 1:32pm
Discussion:
The Kneisses of 1861 E. Barefoot Pl. submitted a fence plan to the ARC for a five foot high wooden privacy fence around their back yard pool and extending to within 5 feet of the road at the west side of the house on the property line. An original partial fence installation was done on this property without ARC or Board approval and was removed at the Board request. The ARC approved the fence plan (see attached) with modification that the extension toward the road not extend beyond the front edge of the house structure.
There was much discussion around the denial of the fence extending to within five feet of the road on the East side.
State Law 720 – 26, the law governing HOAs, states that:
720.3035 Architectural control covenants; parcel owner improvements; rights and privileges.—
(1)(a) The authority of an association or any architectural, construction improvement, or other such similar committee of an association to review
and approve plans and specifications for the location, size, type, or appearance of any structure or other improvement on a parcel, or to enforce standards for the external appearance of any structure or improvement located on a parcel, shall be permitted only to the extent that the authority is specifically stated or reasonably inferred as to such location, size, type, or appearance in the declaration of covenants or other published guidelines and standards authorized by the declaration of covenants.
(4)a If the association or any architectural, construction improvement, or other such similar committee of the association denies a parcel owner’s request or application for the construction of a structure or other improvement on a parcel, the association or committee must provide written notice to the parcel owner stating with specificity the rule or covenant on which the association or committee relied when denying the request or application and the specific aspect or part of the proposed improvement that does not conform to such rule or covenant.
In other words, you have to specify the reason for refusal of a structural addition and that reason has to be stated or inferred in the Governing documents.
It was stated by several folks that there was a mention somewhere in the original governing documents that no fence should extend beyond the front of a house. We were unable to verify this at the time of the meeting or in reviewing the governing documents afterwards.
720.3035 also states:
“An association or any architectural, construction improvement, or similar committee of an association must reasonably and equitably apply and enforce on all parcel owners the architectural and construction improvement standards authorized by the declaration of covenants or other published guidelines and standards authorized by the declaration of covenants.”
It was also pointed out that there are many fences within the association that extend beyond the front of the house and even some that go all the way across the front of the property.
In our AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS, LIMITATIONS, CONDITIONS AND AGREEMENTS from 1982 it states:
“The Architectural Review Committee shall have the right to refuse to approve any such plans and/or specifications which are not suitable or desirable, in its opinions, for aesthetic or other reasons, and in so passing upon such plans, the Committee shall have the right to take into consideration the suitability of the proposed structure or improvement, and of the material of which it is to be built, to the site, the harmony thereof with the surroundings and the effect of the proposed structure of other improvement on the outlook from the adjacent or neighboring property.”
The aspect of aesthetic suitability was mentioned in the discussion but was not posed as a reason for denial by the ARC. The fence will not be highly visible from the road and can be screened by plantings from the neighbors side.
It was stated by the Kneisses that they were informed that the fence could only be 5’ high. They prefer a 6’ fence for privacy. A review of the Governing documents and Guidelines did not come up with a 5’ limitation. Some fences, including the SIA exterior fence are 6 ft high and that its one of the standard sizes readily available in building materials.
It was eventually moved and seconded that the original fence proposal submitted by the Kneisses, including the extension of the fence within 5’ of the road, and allowing for the fence to be 6’ high be approved. The board voted 4 to 1 in favor of the motion, with Vice President Finn casting the opposing vote.
A further topic of discussion was centered on how decisions are made for the Association and how much input members have in decisions.
Our SIA-HOA system is technically modeled after the US Governmental structure as a Democratic Republic. Members elect their representatives, the SIA Board, to make the decisions for the Association, just like US Citizens elect their local, State and Federal representatives. Members can lobby with the Board to influence decisions, but The Board of Directors has decision making power for the Association in all matters per our Governing Documents, except in specific areas. Members must vote and approve all amendments to our Governing Documents and our Architectural Guidelines by majority vote at our annual meetings or by ballot by mail. The Board cannot make changes in those Governing Documents without member approval.
The SIA Board is elected every year by vote of the members.
The Board has appointed a committee to draft a revised proposal for amending the current ARC Guidelines. The committee will present the draft proposal to the Board for review and the Board will decide what then goes to the Members for vote at the annual meeting. This approved ARC Guidelines proposal will be sent out to the Members at the end of September with the Board election ballot.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 pm.