It seems to me that for the association to say people must get a variance to roof their house or other things ignores the fact that we lost on this issue in the Ken Adams affair. We were unable to require any action at all regarding his ''tool shed'' which is clearly visable from the street. All he did was plead ''No restrictions apply'' because when the first ten years was up, Shadow Mountain homeowners voted no. We did not renew our restrictive covenants. Have we since then passed some new ones? I don't think so. Why, then, cause unknowing homeowners to comply with nonexistant covenants? I don't understand. Please enlighten me.
Jeff Krumme

Variance to What?

It does appear from the minutes of the of the city hearing on the ''shed affair'' that, according to the homeowners associations representative that less than the required 75% of the lot owners voted to renew the restrictive covenants and that these are no longer in effect. We have three separate additions here, Shadow Mountain, Shadow Mountain Estates I, & Shadow Mountain Estates II each with there own original covenants. It appears that the (lapsed ?) Shadow Mountain restrictions disallowed any structures except the house and attached garage. S.M. Estates covenants did not disallow these detached structures. So it appears that the city ordinances will govern. If the restrictions are no longer in effect in ''Shadow Mountain Addition'' then why are we bothering with this variance procedure?

Covenants...

It is the Board's position that the convenants are still in full effect. Yes, we were unable to stop Adams' tools shed, but that was more closely related to the lack of money to start the lawsuit that to the ''No Restrictions Apply'' claim. That was his excuse. Once Ken got a building permit, he was ''legal'' in the city's eyes. The Association would have had to go to court to force the issue of the covenants, and we could not affort it.

However, even if that section of the covenants were broken, that does not defeat the covenants completely. State law requires that only 60% is needed in an organization is older than 20 years, and we DID get more than 60% of the signatures to renew the covenant and to make them ''Evergreen''. The law has not been tested in court, but until it is tested and overturned, the law is considered in force.

I hope this helps a little. There could be much more to say, but we're limited to 600 words...