XIX. Secrecy Shrouds Board's Proposed CC&Rs

Have you reviewed the proposed CC&Rs that this Board is trying to push through?

No? Do you wonder why? Doesn't seem fair as you will be voting on them. WHAT is going on?

The proposed CC&R changes by this Board are alarming. The potential consequences of the changes could impact our property values, the beauty and feel of Dover Bay, the care of our roads, as well as jeopardize future negotiations with the city of Dover on managing the roads. These proposals have been crafted in secrecy and will enable the board's agenda.

While the Board directed its member committee to covertly work on extensive changes to the current CC&Rs (the document that came with our titles), they have failed miserably by not including the 425 members of the DBPOA in the process.

Feeling left out? We were given a copy of those CC&R draft changes from the committee that worked on them. If would like a copy, simply email doverbayneighbor@gmail.com

The board also hasn't informed you that the developer of Dover Bay has sent the board an email listing his legal, governance and property rights concerns with the irresponsible and misguided CC&R changes proposed by this Board.

Ralph Sletager approved publishing his email:

---

Hi All,

I’m writing to share several serious concerns regarding the DBPOA Board’s proposed amendments to the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). These proposed changes raise important legal, governance, and property rights issues that deserve the full attention of all members.

A. Lack of Disclosure Regarding Legal Representation

The DBPOA Board should disclose to all members that the law firm Smith + Malek, which is advising the Board on these CC&R amendments, previously represented the City of Dover in matters directly adverse to the DBPOA—including issues that appear closely related to those now underpinning the proposed changes.

Additionally, the Board is aware of serious allegations of misconduct made against the City of Dover on matters substantially connected to these issues. Full transparency is necessary to maintain member trust and avoid legal or ethical conflicts.

Key question: Has a written Informed Consent Agreement been executed among the DBPOA, the City of Dover, and DURA concerning Smith + Malek’s dual involvement? If not, one may be required to avoid conflicts of interest and protect the association.

B. Impact of City Zoning Code Changes on the CC&Rs and Member Rights

The City of Dover has revised its zoning and planning definitions—most notably in Title 12, Chapters 12-3-4 and 12-13-4—which materially affect the foundation of Ordinance 41, the ordinance on which much of our development structure is based. Smith Malek has represented the City’s position adverse to the DB PUD’s entitlement rights in the past. The former Smith Malek attorney is still representing the City of Dover and meeting directly with DBPOA board members.

Members have a right to know and decide for themselves if they are okay with that. Who is representing them?

The City claims these changes either:

1. Maintain the same language as Ordinance 41,

2. Codify Ordinance 41, or

3. Amend Ordinance 41.

However, the substance of these changes tells a different story. By altering or eliminating foundational definitions in the zoning code, the City is effectively rewriting the development framework that the original CC&Rs were built upon. This raises serious questions about the ongoing applicability of our Design Guidelines and the authority of the Design Review Board (DRB).

The scope of these changes is significant:

• Title 12, Chapter 12-13-4 now contains 57 definitions, including 48 new, 8 changed, and only 1 unchanged.

• Ordinance 41 is the governing document of the PUD: Of the 44 definitions included in Ordinance 41, 35 were deleted, 8 changed, and just 1 retained.

Important deleted or modified definitions include: setback, height, administrator, lot, commercial, density, nonconforming use, occupancy, and single-family dwelling. These terms have direct implications for home construction, property development, entitlements, and conformance. Definition changes may even render existing homes nonconforming, with potential legal and valuation consequences.

Bottom line: Every modified or newly introduced definition—whether in the City Code or in the proposed CC&Rs—must be carefully reviewed to ensure that property rights, existing homes, home construction and development expectations are not compromised.

C. Declarant Rights Under Article 14 Must Be Honored

The Board must also disclose that under Article 14 of the CC&Rs, the Declarant retains the right to exercise Development Rights under the following conditions:

• While continuing improvements within the Property,

• While owning any portion of the Property,

• Or while any Development Rights remain in effect.

Any attempt to remove or restrict this right would not only violate the original terms of the CC&Rs but could result in financial harm to the Declarant and potential litigation against the DBPOA. This risk must be fully communicated to all members.

Excerpt from Article 14 – Declarant’s Control and Development Rights:

"Declarant shall have the right to exercise Development Rights so long as Declarant is completing improvements within the Property, or Declarant owns any portion of the Property, or any Development Rights remain in effect."

Conclusion

The proposed CC&R amendments raise complex legal, procedural, and practical concerns. I strongly encourage every homeowner to review these matters carefully, ask questions of the Board, and request full transparency before any action is taken.

Please feel free to reach out if you would like to discuss these issues in more detail.

Thanks rs