The Board Makes Up New Rules: Oh, the Irony!

Well, it seems that former Board Director Phil Trubey went scorched earth on his old colleagues, calling them out for their obvious Davis-Sterling violations and other unethical practices with respect to the two newly proposed, never-before-seen resolutions that present sweeping policy changes to our century-old Art Jury processes.

Love it or hate it, the Art Jury serves a crucial function in maintaining the desirability of our community, and Trubey made the case – point by point – for why the two new resolutions are a mistake, or even worse, a legal problem. Even if legal, it is not a good look for the Board to carve out exceptions to the rules for their own projects.

However, Phil did not address the Proposed Amendment to Regulatory Code Chapter 42 Landscape Regulation. This amendment would add language to deal with a property owner who “clear cuts” or removes a substantial amount of mature vegetation without Art Jury approval, significantly altering the landscape and the views of neighboring properties. If you’ve lived here long enough you’ve undoubtedly seen this happen. This is an issue that needs addressing, and the Board is right to take it up.

Yet, to quote Trubey, “the irony is thick” here, too. Because, in 2021, during the illegal, unpermitted grading of the golf course, the Association removed approximately 60 large skyline trees. These trees were not marked for removal on the Art Jury approved plans. As the trees started falling, the outcry from residents and neighbors was swift. Subsequently, as a condition of County approval of the retroactive grading permit, a landscape plan to replace these trees was required to be submitted within 6 months.  The Association, like any wayward member, would also need to correct the plan discrepancy with the Art Jury. It is now approximately 4 years since County permit approval. And the plan to replace the trees? Like the lonely Maytag repairman, the Art Jury is still waiting. If no landscape plan has been submitted to the Art Jury after 4 years, then it seems doubtful that a plan was submitted to the County within the required 6 months. I wonder how the County feels about that? Or, was the County fed some alternate plan (as rumor has it)?

And that brings us back to the just-proposed Landscape Amendment. It’s clear that the Association is in long-standing violation of this Regulation. Oh, but wait…if they pass the other Resolution that exempts the Association from Art Jury approval on their own projects, they can kill two birds with one stone. They can approve their own landscaping “as-built” and won’t have to replace those annoying trees that the Art Jury and the neighbors have been promised. A win-win for the Association. And a loss-loss for Association members and the Board’s integrity.