• Community Comments
• Board Agenda (to be posted on Web site 3 days before meeting)
• Proposed Bylaw Amendment
• Committee Reports
• Building and Remodels:
  Park, 1561 NW 167th--Enclosing 4 feet of space on the 2nd story
  Morales, 18737 Ridgefield Rd NW--Master bedroom and sunroom addition
  Buescher, 18024 13th N.W.: replace L.P. siding with cedar siding, enclose carport and install garage door.
  Morely, 16751 15th NW: add 6-1/2 foot deck to house
• Closing

Blockwatch Reminder

Theft and vandalism was recently reported on 10th Ave NW close to entrance off 175th. There was theft of a sculpture and potted tree from entry and vandalism of two (alarmed) cars parked in driveway. Remember to keep your doors locked during vulnerable summer months.

Two residents on 13th Ave NW have had incoming mail stolen last week. Bank and credit card statements both gave access to accounts and many checks were fraudulently written on one account and the credit card numbers were lifted to charge many purchases.

Please report criminal activity to policy at 911 (emergency) or 296-3311 (non-emergency) as well as to your Blockwatch captain.

Innis Arden I Blockwatch captain Cindy Rasch 542-1230
Innis Arden II Blockwatch captain Shelley Watson 542-4369
Innis Arden III Blockwatch captain Judy Allen 542-3219

If you don’t know what Innis Arden subdivision you live in, refer to the address label of this Bulletin. In the upper left corner, subdivision, block and lot numbers are printed.

Do you have any new neighbors?

If so, please contact the Hospitality Committee so they can deliver a welcome packet. The hospitality committee is:

Kathleen Malarky 546-2341
Sylvia Moren 546-4221
Bunny Renouard 542-3803
Sandy Risse 542-6963

Innis Arden Welcomes:
Nicholas Abbott and Alison Milne
17730 13th Avenue NW

Mark and Christine Fonty
1530 NW Springdale Place

Steve and Beth Stiens
18790 Ridgefield Rd. NW

Jeff and Heidi Coonjohn
17259 13th Avenue NW

Dan and Sue Buescher
18024 13th NW

Thank You from the Treasurer!

A big thank you to all the many members who have paid their dues so promptly this year. If you have not paid your dues, please do so promptly. If you are not sure whether you have paid them and want to check, you may call the Treasurer, June Howard, at 542-8177. Your dues must be paid by July 31 in order to avoid having a lien placed on your property. This is according to the mandatory dues amendment.

Innis Arden to Host All Cities Swim Meet

Innis Arden Swimming Club will be host to the All Cities Swim Meet on Tuesday, August 5th.  The meet will start at 4:00 pm, but teams will begin arriving at 2:00 pm.  We are expecting large crowds for this premiere event.  We ask the residents near the pool to be extra tolerant and patient that day of cars and people walking to the pool.  We believe Innis Arden will put on a class event and hope that you will come enjoy the festivities and cheer on our swimmers.  If you have any questions or concerns, please call the pool or one of the Swim Board members

Shoreline Community College  Master Plan

Shoreline Community College Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is now available at the Richmond Beach and Shoreline libraries and at Shoreline Community College library. Public meeting and comment is scheduled for JULY 29 @ 7:00pm @ PUB (Canteen). This will be another opportunity to put your comments into the record in writing. The public comment period ends Aug 14, 2003.

Send your comments to:
Judy Yu, 456-4634,
jyu@shore.ctc.edu
16101 Greenwood Avenue North
Shoreline, WA 98133

Clubhouse Update

It is a pleasure to let you know that we have $5,449.21 in the Capital Fund Account, thanks to community spirit and support: kudos to all of you whose generosity allowed us to start work on this exciting project. The list of all contributors will be published in the next bulletin.

At the end of June, the Boxwood architect, Joe Chauncey visited the clubhouse. Boxwood will conduct the pre-design study in three phases:

• Phase One involves reviewing history and information previously prepared as well as conducting a workshop with IA residents to set goals and define the space and facility needs for the community center. Residents will be asked to state their goals and visions for the project. Everyone will have an opportunity to state as many goals as they wish. Then workshop participants will vote on the goals and prioritize them. The final list of goals will be used as a filter to develop a program and to keep the subsequent phases of work on track.
• Phase Two involves analyzing the results of the first workshop, defining an optimum facility based on the established goals, identifying probable construction costs associated with this optimum facility, and then evaluating alternatives that reduce the scope of the project to other program and budget levels. Phase two concludes with a second workshop with IA residents to review this work and make a decision on a direction to finalize.
• Phase Three consists of preparing a recommended design concept for the community center, evaluating its cost, and preparing a pre-design report. The report will contain information for the community about the decisions made by the participants and to aid in the fund raising effort.

The Clubhouse Committee is planning to have the first workshop with the Innis Arden residents some time in September. The exact date will be published in the Bulletin and posted on our Web site.

The Clubhouse Committee has two representatives of the Activities Committee: Jeri Jacobsen, an architect, and Jan Holbrook, an interior designer. We cordially welcome them and look forward to work together. Have a great summer, Ewa Sledziewski

Response to the “ARM of IA”

Last month the “Association for Responsible Management of Innis Arden” mailed their concerns to many residents. The following is the Board’s response to their concerns:

ENFORCEMENT FINES

The state statute explicitly gives such authority to an HOA, whether a profit or nonprofit corporation. The Club fits the definition of an HOA. Plus, this is not authority granted to the Club Board "against” the shareholders. It authorizes shareholders themselves to bring complaints and have them resolved without having to resort to Court in the first place. The Club has been a defendant in two cases in which litigation was brought by shareholders AGAINST the Club in Court. The Club prevailed in both, but the expense for the shareholders and the Club was significant.  How will creating a system in which, for some cases, Court is not the first resort,” escalate conflict within our community"? In fact, it may keep it from escalating and what’s wrong with that?

REMODELS (WARRANTY OF COMPLIANCE)

• Judge Jarvis (from Wurmbrand and Rosenberg v Innis Arden 99-2-19512-4, March 24, 2000) stated “Being fully advised, the Court ORDERS that Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED, Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED, and a partial judgment is hereby entered that the Innis Arden Restrictive Covenants give the Innis Arden Club authority to review proposed building sites for Covenant compliance as part of its review of proposed construction".
• Numerous homeowners have had their plans approved only to end up building something else that was not approved by the Board. By the time the remodel is complete, it is too late for the Board to do anything about it. The covenants state, “If the Grantor fails to approve or disapprove said plans and specifications within thirty days after the same have been submitted to him, or, in any event, if no suit to enjoin the erection of such building or the making of such alterations has been commenced prior to the completion thereof, such approval will not be required and the provisions of this paragraph will be deemed to have been fully complied with.”   Had the homeowner signed the Warranty of Compliance, the Board would have had legal recourse in compelling the homeowner to build according to approved plans.
• The Warranty of Compliance raises the covenant consciousness of residents seeking remodels.

• The covenants state “As to all improvements, construction and alterations in Innis Arden, the Grantor shall have the right to refuse to approve any design, plan or color for such improvements construction or alterations which is not suitable or desirable, in Grantor’s opinion, for any reason, aesthetic or otherwise…” 
• During the April Board meeting approval for ‘minor’ remodels was discussed, including a new roof, siding, windows, paint, and gutters. However, ‘minor’ remodel approval was never implemented.
• In fact a proposed addition to the Homeowners Guideline for Building and Remodel to be discussed during July’s meeting is,
  ‘The following types of construction do not require Board approval:
  a) Repair or replacement with like or similar materials, i.e. roofs, windows, exterior doors, siding, gutters.
  b) Exterior painting, if standard or earth tone colors are used.
  c) Fences and gates, unless special materials are used and/or the height of the fence is in compliance with the covenants limitations.’

UNPRECEDENTED LAWSUIT

• The plans the Innis Arden family submitted to the City of Shoreline indicated exterior work including enclosing an area previously not enclosed. The Innis Arden family in question denied several times that the remodel involved exterior work and went ahead with construction. This put the Club in an untenable position because inaction on the part of the Club could have later been construed as legal indifference, barring enforcement of the covenants.  That is why the Club acted quickly once it became clear that the Innis Arden family was not going to stop and submit their plans.
• When their plans were finally made available to the Board, it was determined that the remodel included removing and replacing 28 feet of the south wall, adding skylights which increased roof height by 8 or 9 inches, a new chimney, and infill at front entry
• The Parkers' lawsuit against the Club complained that, among other things, this kind of enclosure had been permitted without approval -- and blamed the Club for not going after Shafer to correct it.
• Immediate neighbor approval is not and cannot be determinative of covenant compliance. The covenants are based on a common plan for the entire community. Brokering approvals of exceptions to that plan undercuts the legal viability of the plan as a whole -- and ultimately leads to claims of abandonment. When those claims of abandonment are made -- and vindicated -- then there are no covenants left to enforce -- and the whole community suffers.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The “current member of the Board” long ago recused himself from the legal effort involving the family mentioned above because there was a direct conflict. At the same time, it is not "realistic" to expect Board members to avoid being involved in matters which might affect, indirectly, their complaints or disagreements with other shareholders. That's because the Board is NOT a city council: it is elected from among a very small community and everyone's interests are to some extent intertwined with everybody else's. Clearly, the advocates for particular points of view who make up the "Association for Responsible Management" have their own strongly-held points of view. Are they suggesting that even in the absence of a direct conflict, this would disqualify them from Board participation (were they elected)?

FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Legal costs to reinstate the Special Master process:

• During the September 2002 Board meeting a motion was passed to retain attorney Richard Hill for $5,000 to reinstate the Special Master process which would eventually cost $10K-$12K.
• Since that time
  1) It has become apparent that implementing fines for covenant enforcement would be much more cost effective for the Club and
  2) It was determined that Richard Hill was representing Viking Properties which is trying to break the covenants of another community across the street from Innis Arden.
  Because this is a clear conflict of interest, Hill is currently representing neither Innis Arden nor Viking Properties and he can never represent a client against Innis Arden. Subsequently Hill has returned $2,012.
• The Board is relieved that these facts became apparent before any more money was spent, and that Hill can never represent a client suing the Club.

Survey of the Reserves:

• Before any consideration can be given to managing our Reserves for trails, view corridors*, safety and varied wildlife, the City of Shoreline requires that a survey be performed. “Group Four” was contracted to do a boundary, topography and tree survey of Running Water, Blue Heron and Eagle Reserves.
• To take no action would result in continued erosion of the trails, ever increasing view blockage, growing opportunities for homeless habitat, and vegetation so thick the reserves could not be used or enjoyed by residents.  It is the obligation of the grantee (Board) to maintain the Reserves for “parks, bridle trails, playgrounds or other community purposes”.

The $3000 Water Meter:

The Grouse Reserve Neighborhood Association has privately paid over $100,000 to manage the two acre Reserve. The plan, approved by the city, includes retention of approximately 40% of the total existing trees and the planting of 355 trees, 830 shrubs, and 1868 herbs/ground covers. Tree removal and pruning was performed by an ISA Certified Arborist and licensed contractor. The Board felt that allocating $3,000 for a water meter (NOT the water) was the least it could do help manage the Reserve.

ONE-SIDED COMMUNICATIONS AND CLOSED MEETINGS

• The Board conducts all meetings at the Clubhouse. If community members choose to attend these meetings they are welcome. Special meetings on shorter notice (to Board members, as well as others) occasionally occur when an emergent need arises. The Board complies with the bylaws in giving notice of all meetings.
• ARM seems to complain that the Board is operating by consensus without substantial disagreement on key policy questions. Isn't it good thing for the community that the Board is not in fractious disarray?

WE MUST PROTECT THE COVENANTS

Protection of the covenants necessarily must involve ensuring that they are applied and enforced -- otherwise, they can become legally "abandoned".

*ARM of IA will assert that the view preservation amendment does not apply to our Reserves. However, Boeing quitclaimed the Reserves to the Innis Arden Club with conditions, including:

1.       That the Restrictive Mutual Easements of Innis Arden, Innis Arden No. 2 and Innis Arden No. 3 mentioned above, by this reference and by the references made thereto hereinabove, are incorporated into and made a part of this offer.

2.       That said Restrictive Mutual Easements shall include all amendments made in accordance with the terms of said Restrictive Mutual Covenants.

3.       That THE INNIS ARDEN CLUB, INC., by accepting this offer, shall assume and shall agree to be bound by said Restrictive Mutual Easements and shall accept the benefits thereof as a part of the consideration for the purchase of the property described herein.

Activities Announcements

Next meeting--Tuesday, September 2nd at 7:00 pm
@ the Clubhouse (no August meeting)

Yep, just 5 days before the Salmon BBQ we will be meeting to review jobs and responsibilities, and get our “to do” list in order for the big day. We need a lot of helpers so this is your chance to jump in and contribute as much or as little your schedule allows. Plus, you get the benefit of taking a few leftovers home with you if you work on the clean-up crew! Please call Mary Cleaveland at 533-9580 or Chris Kocher at 533-1223 and let them know how you can help OR if there’s a certain day and/or time works that for you let them know and we’ll find you the right job.

Mark your Calendars!! The Friday-Saturday (and Sunday) Series sponsored by the Activities Committee continue …

• Sunday, Sept 7th—The 29th Annual Salmon Barbeque (click here to register)
• Saturday, Oct 18th—The First Annual Oktoberfest
• Friday, Nov 7th—Table and Chair Design and Decor
• Sunday, Dec 7th—Annual Holiday Party

Innis Arden Club, Inc.
Board of Directors Meeting
July 8, 7:00 PM
Summary of Minutes

The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m.
Board members present: Michael Rasch (President), Mike Jacobs (Vice President), June Howard (Treasurer), Carol Solle (Secretary), Loys Lamb (Buildings and Remodels), Maggie Taber (Grounds), Dave Fosmire (Reserves), Roger Lowell (Activities): Excused, Ewa Sledziewski (Clubhouse). Community members attending: About 30

Minutes for April and May 2003 were corrected to reflect that Roger Lowell was in attendance

Minutes for June 2003 were corrected to reflect that a motion passed regarding the Dillard remodel was 8-0

Action: A motion to approve corrected April and May 2003 minutes passed unanimously.

Action: A motion to approve corrected June 2003 minutes passed unanimously.

A. Community Announcements and Concerns

• Elizabeth Park made a formal complaint against the Innis Arden Board with respect to her attempts in getting her remodel approved. She alleged that she was given misinformation and her personal rights and privacy were violated.
• Rene Foss is in support of the Board’s efforts, but is against speed bumps, and feels it should be voted upon.
• Phelps reminded Jacobs that she wants to see the signed contract between Innis Arden and the Grouse Reserve Neighborhood Association.
• Roxana Augusztiny believes that the proposed bylaw amendment should be a covenant amendment and asked why the Board is picking and choosing which covenants to enforce: for example, the covenant prohibiting more than one cat and one dog is not included in the bylaw amendment.
• Wagar commended the Board and the community for being civil during the last special meeting.
• Bob Nickinovich, President of the Swim Club, briefed the community on the upcoming swim meet that will occur on August 5^th. It is anticipated that 1,000 people will be attending and preparations include installing stands for spectators, porta-potties, tents, and security patrol.
• Rasch expressed his regrets that Ms. Park’s remodel application process has not gone smoothly, and that the Board is taking steps to improve the process.
• There will be one new speed ‘hump’ as an experiment.
• Jacobs said that Elaine has a copy of the contract and the original is filed. Jacobs will locate the original.
• Rasch pointed out the Board’s three choices in dealing with the covenants: 1) Sue for compliance, 2) Fine for compliance or 3) ignore covenant violations. Option 1 would require raising dues to at least $500/year because there are so many covenant violations (tree height, noxious use of property i.e. junk cars in yard, rat infested abandoned house) that would have to be litigated. Option 2 is the least expensive. Option 3 is unacceptable to the Board.

B. Board Agenda

Building and Remodel Revisions
Summary of proposed changes in the B&R documents:

• Building and Remodel Policy Statement:
  a) Visual aids shall be erected if remodel involves increase in depth or width (in addition to height) of structure
  b) If there are trees on property possibly blocking neighbors’ views, visual aids such as balloons or aluminum disks will be installed near the top of trees in order to aid identification
  c) For purposes of enforcement of the view preservation covenant, the permissible height of the trees on the applicant’s property shall be no higher than the height originally allowed under the view preservation covenant. This will be recorded as a deed amendment at the King County recorder’s office.
  d) Number 10 was removed--“One year after completion, the Board will no longer need your plans. Plans will be returned to you or the present owner of the house.”  In fact the Board will keep one set and return the other set of plans per the covenants which state “A complete copy of said plans and specifications shall in each case be delivered to and permanently left with the Grantor”.
• Homeowner's Guideline:
  a) Visual aids shall be erected if remodel involves increase in depth or width (in addition to height) of structure
  b) Neighbor notification is 250' from applicant’s lot line. If neighbors further than 250’ from applicant’s lot line are affected, they will be notified as well.
  c) The application date shall be the date that the application is presented to the Board
  d) The following types of construction do not require Board approval: (i) Repair or replacement with like or similar materials, roofs, windows, exterior doors, siding, gutters (ii) Exterior paint if standard or earth tone colors are used and (iii) Fences and gates, unless special materials are used and/or the height of the fence is not in compliance with the covenant limitations
• Application Form:
  a) "Application Date" is changed to "Date received by B&R Chair"
  b) "fences/walls" replaced by "Exterior (yard) walls"
  c) "Application Date" changed to "Date of Signature"
  d) under notes, added "Submittal date shall be the date that the application is submitted to the Board. Submittal to the B&R chair does not constitute submittal to the Board"

Action: A motion to adopt the proposed changes, effective September 1, 2003 was passed unanimously.

Proposed Bylaw Amendment:
Action: A motion to conduct special meetings of the Board of Directors on July 29^th, September 4^th and a final meeting to vote on September 16^th was passed unanimously.

Discuss employment disposition of Tennis Coach and Clubhouse Manager:
Lowell reported that we have changed our insurance carrier from Hartford to Safeco. Safeco is offering us coverage on the field and the extra liability we wanted. However, the only way we can cover the tennis coach is to have him be an employee of the club. If we do it that way our current coverage will cover him. If we keep him as an independent contractor he will have to get his own insurance, costing him around $1500 thus effectively killing the tennis program. Likewise, the only way the Clubhouse Manager can be covered is if she is an employee as well.
Action: A motion to have the tennis coach and clubhouse manager become employees was passed unanimously.

The tennis program will take care of the local and Federal taxes for the tennis coach.

Discuss consulting with the League of Women Voters to review our voting process and observe elections:
Solle reported that during last year’s election the unexpected number of proxy votes resulted in long lines for people waiting to vote. A big turnout is expected during the Annual meeting in January and we want the election to proceed smoothly. The League of Women voters will consult with us regarding the ballot and voting procedures, and will observe the election for a donation of $200-$300.
Action: A motion to spend up to $300 to have the League of Women Voters consult with us regarding ballots, voting procedures and to supervise the election was passed unanimously.

Cottingham Remodel:
Action: A motion to have a special closed meeting to discuss legal matters concerning the Cottingham remodel at a date to be announced was passed unanimously.

Dillard Lawsuit:
The Dillards have submitted a complete application.
Action: A motion to instruct Eglick to dismiss the Dillard lawsuit was passed 6-0 with one abstention.

Traffic:
Rasch reported that in addition to one speed hump, will also be getting a new stop sign at NW 188^th and Springdale Court, along with a crosswalk and speed limit signs. Sidewalks are included in the city’s plan. Innis Arden Drive and 13^th NW may be added to the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program (NTSP). Radar speed limit signs are going to be mounted at 10^th NW and later on Innis Arden Drive and 13^th NW.  Lowell felt that the issue of speed bumps should be brought up before a Board vote.

C. Committee Reports

Treasurer:
Howard presented June’s financial report, reflecting the Club’s healthy financial position. Our expenses are $11,463 under budget and our funds are $1,370 over budget. Legal fees are $830 under budget. She reported that liens will be filed on July 31^st against delinquent shareholders property.

Activities:
The next Activities meeting will be September 2^nd. Volunteers are needed for the following: 1) Salmon BBQ 2) To make signs for community events such as the Salmon BBQ and the Rummage Sale 3) a person to help with coffee and goodies served at meetings and 4) someone to represent the Activities Committee (AC) on the Clubhouse committee. Lowell received Grounds chair Taber’s blessing for the AC to landscape more area near the Clubhouse.

Grounds:
Taber did a walk through with Darrin French of Greenridge Landscape July 7. There is no current contract and there hasn’t been one for over 4 years. The current billing is $560 per month, plus dump fees which works out to $35 per hour, or 16 hours/month or goods in kind (i.e. bark mulch or dump fees). Greenridge does jobs by season, mostly weeding and cosmetic stuff in the summer, and pruning in the winter.  Taber asked that he concentrate on the area around the clubhouse prior to the swim meet. He pointed out an area just off the back patio where he had cleared back the brush and there is a step that needs attention.

The official soccer camp is off, due to insurance concerns.  There may be neighborhood kids using the fields in August.

Proposal:  To take out the following trees at the SW corner of the field, 1 large poplar, 3 larger firs, and 2 hemlocks (believed to be diseased).  There is also a smaller fir in the city right of way that has been approved by the city for removal.  Taber will get 3 bids for the tree work. The poplar and the firs are doing extensive damage to the path, the grass and are choking out the Port Orford Cedars (very choice trees). 

Smit mentioned that we need new signs for the tennis courts saying “Tennis Only”, as she observed kids playing hockey on them. Taber saw some kids hitting real golf balls on the playfield which is a hazard. A warning will be printed in the Bulletin.

Reserves:
Fosmire found an extensive series of large bike jumps in Coyote reserve which have apparently been used for years. He has posted ‘no trespassing’ signs and has invited neighbors to call police when such activity is observed.

Fosmire has received letters from 9 residents requesting the removal of 6 trees in Bear reserve. He has received verbal authorization from the city. The neighbors would need to pay for their removal and replacement with lower growing species. The plan will be presented at a future Board meeting.  He continues to work with the city regarding the 24 hazardous trees in Boeing Creek Reserve.

• Phelps urged that a ‘Reserves Committee’ be re-instated and there should be a contract between the Board and the people paying
• Smit remarked that she and other parents won’t let their kids walk through our reserves because of the overgrown vegetation and the ease in which undesirable people can lurk. If we had safe trails in our reserves, kids could use them to get to school and the swim pool. Traffic is a concern in the community and there are no sidewalks. Why not open up the Reserves to the kids so that they can safely walk?
• Lowell felt that Fosmire is doing exactly what this community needs
• Judy Allen said that the police are delighted with the work that Dave has done in the reserves, making trails more visible.

Buildings and Remodels:
Two volunteers, Judy Allen and R.L. Smith have stepped forward to form a committee to perform preliminary site investigations for building and remodel applications, advising homeowners if staking is necessary, which neighbors need to be notified and the associated due dates in order for the remodel to be considered during the next Board Meeting.

Action: A motion to form a committee to perform preliminary site investigations passed unanimously.

• Park, 1561 NW 167th--Enclosing 4 feet of space and extending roof on the 2nd story. On June 30^th, revised drawings were received, but they still were not construction drawings.
  Action: Motion to deny Park application without prejudice pending receipt of construction plans and specifications was passed unanimously.
• Dillard, 1463 NW 186th—removing and replacing 28 feet of the south wall, adding skylights, new chimney, and infill at front entry. Application and site visit have been completed.
  Action: Motion to approve Dillard application subject to trees being in compliance (with roof height measured minus added height of sky lights) passed 7-0.

Several neighbors have observed that the O’Neil remodel is higher than plans indicate.

Action: Motion to notify O’Neil to stop roof construction pending a survey to determine that construction is according to plan and doesn’t exceed approved height was passed unanimously.

D. Closing

Action: At 10:20, a motion to adjourn was unanimously approved.
-Carol Solle, Secretary

Special Meeting of the Board of Directors
June 25^th, 2003

Present: Michael Rasch (President), Mike Jacobs (Vice President), June Howard (Treasurer), Carol Solle (Secretary), Roger Lowell (Activities), Ewa Sledziewski (Clubhouse), Dave Fosmire (Reserves), Loys Lamb (Building and Remodels), Maggie Taber (Grounds)

The meeting was called in order to discuss amending the Innis Arden bylaws to incorporate covenant compliance including a hearing procedure, implementation of fines for non-compliance, and an appeal process that provides for binding arbitration. In an effort to avoid neighbors suing neighbors, the Board is considering a fine system so that adjudication would be by the Board. This would prevent people from going to court. In 1995 RCW 64.38 provided an opportunity for dispute resolution allowing home owners associations to institute a fine schedules in order to gain compliance with the covenants. Working will club counsel, the Board has come up with a draft amendment to bylaws. The details of these amendments are under debate. There has not been a decision to implement this proposed amendment. The Board is seeking community input. After discussion and community meetings, the Board will then decide whether or not to adopt this amendment.

• Solle: Club Counsel said that the covenants are like the Constitution. Bylaws are the way we implement our covenants. The bylaw amendment adds no new restrictions to the covenants, but only a way to enforce the existing covenants.
• Jacobs: If a home owner disputes Board’s decision, binding arbitration is part of the appeal process. It is a fair scheme, designed to resolve disputes quickly and inexpensively and hopefully would solve the problems that have been going on for 30 years.
• Lowell: Enforcing covenants is extremely frustrating. Our lawyer has recommended amending the covenants. Was involved in amending the covenants, but this would probably be impossible because there are so many differing views. To amend the covenants requires approval of 2/3 of the community. I think that fines would be extremely effective.
• Howard: When I moved into IA, I assumed covenants were enforced and was taken aback to find that they weren’t.  There has been a lot of work put into this document. It seems to me that most people want to obey the covenants. The problem is the few people who don’t. This is a simple and straight forward document. Most communities do use fines for enforcement. Look at the amendment with an open mind.
• Fosmire: Without continued covenant enforcement, we could suffer the same consequences as the neighboring community on 8^th, where a developer is trying to build lots of houses.
• Sledziewski: Covenants are protection for the community, not punishment. Covenants protect our property values. Property values consist of protecting views of Puget Sound and the Olympics Mountains. For a vast majority, covenants are important. They are effective only if enforced. It is devastating to the community if the only way to enforce covenants is through lawsuits. Throughout the state and country, fines are an effective and inexpensive tool. An open and fair process is being presented by the Board.
• Taber: The Board is not out to enforce the covenants, but would be dealing with complaints as they come in. We want to help people deal with neighbors in complying with the covenants.
• Lamb: Many people are upset with loosing their views and want them back. A change in bylaws will allow us to enforce compliance and not go to court.
• Solle: Several letters written in 1992 by Judge Ellington to the Board (Richard Eadie) were read. In them, she urged the Board to substitute the Special Master proceedings with a community based process for ‘long term implementation of the covenants’. She added that a healthy, well designed process which could be implemented by the community, utilizing the Court’s guidelines would be the long-range goal. She even included forms used by the Board in the 1980’s for covenant enforcement as examples.  Amending the bylaws to incorporate a hearing procedure, fines, and an appeal process would speak to Judge Ellington’s recommendation.
• Rasch: There was a process implemented 10 years ago that did not succeed. If we do not do something in our neighborhood to try to enforce our covenants, there is a danger that a developer could come in and start a court action to invalidate the covenants and they would be gone. We want to get it to a point so that we can implement them and enforce them. Otherwise, they will be abandoned and there won’t be a covenanted community any more.

• Kohn: Would prefer going back to Judge Ellington. There is potential for mischievousness implementing fines.
• N. Rust: Was a legislator during the time that this bill was passed and it was termed ‘permissive’ legislation. Bylaws describe how we govern ourselves, including elections, meetings and operation, but do not include implementing fines.
• Schwarz: If you have fines, how do you get them to pay? How will adult family homes be handled?
• Silverstein: Was disturbed that Board would assume this route. Covenants should be enforced, but not by fines.
• Stewart: Has home in another covenanted community and fines work well.
• West: When he bought his house he agreed to abide by the covenants but not to be fined.
• Averill: In favor of covenant enforcement but is against fines. This should be a covenant amendment.
• Wager: Upset that all Board members are speaking strongly unanimous. Board is perceived as heavy handed.
• Foss: Something should be done about trees. Felt that complaints should be in writing, and that the Board doesn’t go looking for covenant violations.
• Hollenrake: Enforcing the covenants through litigation is expensive and not fair for people without the resources and is strongly in favor of this system.
• Victory: Preserving views is very complicated because the reserves fall under the County’s Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO, now call ‘critical area’ under the city of Shoreline). Perhaps the covenants should be modified. There is not a straight easy answer.
• Henry: A fine system would be ok but it should be as a covenant amendment.
• Hoffman: Should be a covenant amendment
• R.L. Smith: This change is wrong if it is voted by the Board for the entire community
• Ulrickson: Feels that system is already in place. Penalties are overkill.
• Jeff Ward: Board meetings are long and not effective. Past Boards have selected which covenants to enforce. If this Board is single minded it is because they were open minded and favors current Board’s proactive approach.
• Minorchio: Supports Board’s need to aggressively enforce covenants. Sheridan Beach has lost theirs.
• E. Phelps: Attorney’s have different opinions. Boeing provided a way for our covenants to be enforced through the courts. The only covenants that the Board has the authority to enforce is Building and Remodels and management of the Reserves. A balance is needed between trees and views Trees are our souls. A change like this would call for a covenant amendment.
• H.D. Campbell: It is a lot of work being on the Board. Board shouldn’t be bothered with cosmetic remodels. The Board is trying something illegal.
• Bob Allen: Feels that the fine system is good in that it would require a complaint, with an opportunity for neighbors to work with each other. If they don’t co-operate, the Board is offering an opportunity to solve the problem. It can be appealed to arbitration.
• Tolfree: Board derives authority from the covenants. It is a serious matter to assess fines against neighbors. The covenants should be amended to provide this type of procedure.
• Bliss: Concern is that there are better ways than taking out lawsuits. We need to improve our process but not with fines.
• Chapman: Has worked with neighbors to managed trees, offering to pay. Tree height amendment should be enforced, but determining colors of houses or roof materials is ridiculous.
• Scudder: Fines may create more divisiveness. The Board seems to be in lock step. Wants the bylaws amended in a more democratic way.
• M. Smith: Concurs with Scudder. The Board should not vote on such an important issue for the whole community during the summer.
• Pugmire: Moved here because of the large lots. If we loose the covenants, that would be a problem.
• R. Jones: The bylaw amendment is useful only as long as current Board is in office. When the Board changes, the bylaws will change again. The change should prevail for longer than 12 months.
• Lilliness: The previous Board was in lock step for 11 years. The current Board is avoiding the ‘patch and Band-Aid’ approach. When a consumer buys a product, there are warranties and extended warranties. However, when consumers buy property in Innis Arden, they get little to protect their investment.
• P. Taylor: Every Board has done a good job. This is not a matter for the Board to decide.
• P. Wehmeyer: Agrees that a decision should be voted on by the community. Is not against enforcing the tree height amendment on private property, but what is going to happen in the Reserves?
• B. Phelps: The Board has the authority to disprove of a short plat. Fines should be given to a vote by the people or a covenant amendment.
• J. Allen: While collecting signatures for the Mandatory Dues amendment, she promised people that the Board would respond to complaints. She supports fines.
• J. Tolfree: Was concerned that people on fixed incomes may not be able to cut trees or clean up their property. She felt a provision should be made for people who cannot afford to comply.
• M. Woodfield: Would be willing to help people clean up their yards. If people don’t like the current Board, then find a candidate and vote for them.
• Coulter: Fines should be put to a vote.
• M. Lyall: The Board was voted by 75 people, not the entire community. It might not be to your benefit having the Board making decisions.
• J. Beard: Decision should be made by community, not the Board.

Jacobs encouraged people to read the bylaw amendment.
Meeting was adjourned at 8:30 PM.

“Insanity is doing the same thing
over and over again,
expecting the outcome to be different”
Letter to the Editor

Based on research I’ve done by reading very old community bulletins, updates, correspondence, newspaper articles, etc., it is clear that this community has been in a war zone over view related issues for decades. In spite the View Preservation Covenant and Judge Ellington’s rulings, subsequent efforts to achieve compliance have continued to fail. I can’t help but ask myself how the newly formed Association for Responsible Management of Innis Arden will unite this community instead of dividing it even further.

All of this is prompting me to list the benefits of the proposed bylaw amendment to incorporate covenant compliance, including levying fines:

• Fining a non-compliant property owner is the least expensive method over having to incur attorney/court costs.
• If you feel that either the compliance committee or the Board has made an unfair ruling, you may appeal the decision to mandatory arbitration with an impartial third party.
• You signed the protective covenants with the understanding that it is an enforceable, legal document, and you expect others to abide by it. You believe that residents who refuse to become compliant should be held accountable.
• If you are, or intend to become covenant compliant, you cannot be fined.
• You believe that not all conflict can be resolved over coffee (as has been suggested at numerous meetings) and thus provisions have to be made for those instances when someone refuses to comply.
• Views matter in a community like ours.  You are proud of and enjoy the expansive views of Puget Sound and the Olympic mountains. Declining views reduce property values and make the overall community less desirable to future buyers, thus it’s vital to preserve the views.
• Your home is your single biggest investment. Everyone wants to maximize its value when it’s time to sell or use it as collateral.

I would also like to list reasons why you most likely would not agree to the above:

• You intend to remain non-compliant (view blocking trees and/or hedges, trash, junk cars, lack of property maintenance and upkeep, etc.), and you disagree on principal.
• Covenant compliance is only good if it suits you.
• You intend to be a divisive force in this community whether it makes sense or not in spite of the survey results.
• The views of Puget Sound and the Olympics do nothing for you; you feel that they’re overrated at best.
• Enhancing your property value by being in a covenant compliant community is of no concern to you.
• You feel that Mr. and Mrs. Boeing’s intent for this community was misguided and should be reversed at all cost.
• You would rather pay significantly higher annual dues to pay for litigation.

I would like to suggest that it’s about time to support the present Board. You voted for them, making it their job to enforce the covenants. Make no mistake about it. Their mandate from some 320 community members who responded to last year’s survey gave them a clear message: protective covenants, including view preservation, are important to extremely important issues.

I invite you to ask yourself what you can do for this community, your neighbors, the environment, and the wildlife. Ask yourself if you’re covenant compliant. Go to your neighbors’ house and gain a perspective from their vantage point. And by all means have coffee with your neighbor and discuss how to resolve any possible conflicts in a positive and constructive manner. End result? Goodwill and a community where people respect one another!

Thank you all for listening. –Marion Woodfield

• July 29-Hamlin Park Panudo: Steel Drum Band
• August 5-Richmond Beach Saltwater Park Jazz 4 U: American Jazz, blues, folk & rock

• July 30-Cromwell Park Illusion of Elvis: Elvis and friends
• August 6-Richmond Beach Saltwater Park Jim Basnight Band: Pop-rock, blues, jazz, R&B
• August 13-Richmond Beach Saltwater Park Shoreline Jazz Band and Karin Kajita: Jazz Quintet
• August 20-Richmond Beach Saltwater Park Eakra Bata: Caribbean steel drums and dance