1993 • Contract to purchase lot from Anthony. • Shortly after terms of contract are agreed upon – Anthony informs us that Airpark Drive will not be extended and will be re-platted as a cul-de-sac. • Our contract is revised to purchase our present lot at end of street and an additional parcel of land adjacent to the lot.
1994 • House plans are reviewed and approved by ACC in early 1994. • Original plans had LPG tank situated behind guest bedroom with longitudinal axis of tank parallel to house. • Septic tank placement precluded placement of LPG tank as originally planned and approved by ACC. • ACC notified and committee member is sent to house to evaluate.
1994 (continued) • LPG tank location was discussed. ACC member agrees that planned location for tank pad is not suitable due to septic holding tank location. • ACC Inspector recommends moving tank to the existing location. • We comply with ACC recommendation and pour LPG pad and run lines per his guidelines.
1994 (continued) • House is completed in July. • ACC sends another person out to house for another inspection. • ACC final approval is given with tank located in present location with “screening” provided by house. • There was no issue with tank location or screening at time of final ACC approval.
Airpark Drive in 1993 This picture from our 1993 survey shows the cul-de-sac looking south.
1994 – After Home Completion • Anthony decides to drastically expand the Airpark. • Airpark Drive is extended along south side of our property and then all the way south to Bellchase Drive. • Effectively creates a “corner lot” for us.
March 1995 • 1st letter regarding LPG tank received from PPOA • Letter incorrectly asserts that LPG tank is not on plans. • After exchange of letters, I meet with General Manager Rosen at Clubhouse with 2 ACC members in attendance. • It is agreed by all parties that there was a “misunderstanding” and since Airpark Drive was extended (contrary to what everyone had been told) after our house was built, the matter would be dropped.
1996 • Developer publishes a 12 page advertisement called Nutcracker News which is circulated around Ft. Worth and surrounding counties. • The publication features our home on the front cover as the sole example of the quality homes being offered in Pecan Plantation. • This was done without our knowledge or permission. • It also was done with our LPG tank in plain view from the Airpark Drive extension. • The “unscreened” LPG tank was obviously of no concern to the Developer since he used a prominently placed picture of our home in his ad to attract new buyers.
January 2000 • 2nd PPOA letter received – 5 years after first letter. • Threatening in nature, it states that tank must be screened NLT 28 February or legal action will be taken against us. • I personally meet with PPOA representative Geep White at our home on 11 February. • Mr. White states that he feels that our property is in compliance since Airpark Drive was, in fact, extended without our prior knowledge but wants to discuss matter with ACC.
February 2000 • PPOA representative Geep White contacts us several days later and informs us that our property should have been, and will continue to be, “grandfathered” with respect to specific issues arising from the Airpark Drive extension. • 28 February deadline passes - PPOA management, once again, is satisfied that we are in compliance with respect to the LPG tank screening issue and the matter is dropped.
February 2005 • 3rd PPOA letter received – signed by Mr. Royce Cox. • Same LPG tank issue but this letter contained new conditions for screening not delineated in the Covenants and Restrictions. • Spoke with Cox on 13 April – once again we were told to disregard letter, we were in compliance.
June 2006 • Developer issues his “Propane Tank Interpretation Letter” • Mainly a history of Butane/Propane tanks in Pecan Plantation. • Last sentence is really only one that is germane to the current issue. • But if Developer is so concerned about LPG tank screening……..
Why does he have an “unscreened” tank sitting right behind his premier commercial venture here in Pecan?Maybe it is because he feels being located a couple hundred feet from the street doesn’t make it “noticeable”…………
July 2006 • 4th letter from PPOA – again signed by Royce Cox w/ Brent Hamilton and again threatening in nature. • Letter once again contains language not part of C&Rs. • Meeting is scheduled with Messrs. Cox, Hamilton, and Tyra to discuss the issue one more time.
Initial Meeting15 August 2006 • Mr. Tyra hears our side of the issue. • During meeting Mr. Cox confirms to Mr. Tyra that he was instructed by the BOD in 2005 to drop the LPG enforcement issue against Mr. and Mrs. Stallings because we had been “grandfathered”. • Mr. Tyra takes information under advisement and tells us that “everything is on hold” until we hear back from him.
14 September 2006 • A Second Notice Letter is received from the ACC even though we are still awaiting word from Mr. Tyra regarding his investigation into the matter. • This letter contains new definitions for compliance along with discrepancies in C&R wording. • “Seen” and “Visible” are not the same as noticeable.
05 October 2006 • Met with G.M. Bartholomew to discuss issue of Second Notice Letter being sent after Mr. Tyra instructed us to do nothing until hearing back from him. • We explain that if we are not out of compliance, we cannot be accused of a “flagrant violation”. • Mr. Bartholomew is totally indifferent to our concerns and our documentation showing past compliance. • We ask for letter documenting the meeting – a hastily drafted memo finally arrives over 2 weeks later and only after repeated requests.
24 October 2006 • “Flagrant Violation” is issued with no regard to evidence showing us to be in compliance no less than 4 times over the past 13 years. • Mr. Tyra schedules our ACC appeal for 16 November. • We contact attorney to handle appeal procedure and/or lawsuit. • Work schedule is rearranged so as to be available for hearing on 16 November.
ACC Appeal Hearing16 November 2006 • We are notified only hours before ACC hearing that our appeal has been cancelled. • Mr. Tyra calls me that evening and advises that appeal will be rescheduled to 07 December. • I advise Mr. Tyra that I probably would not be able to meet on that date due to having changed my schedule so as to be available for hearing that had just been unilaterally cancelled. I inform him that I will let him know something ASAP.
02 December 2006 • Mr. Tyra is informed that, due to my work schedule, I cannot attend 07 December ACC meeting. • Mr. Tyra assures me that our appeal will be heard by the ACC and advises me that the hearing will be rescheduled for 14 December. • Work schedule is again rearranged in order to be available on 14th.
11 December 2006 • Phone call from Mr. Tyra followed by a letter from Brent Hamilton stating that ACC meeting was held on 07 December despite the fact we had be told the meeting would be held on 14 December. • Letter is contradictory in nature since it states that the ACC did not hear the appeal and took no action. Yet, in his email to our attorney, Mr. Hamilton states that the ACC made a decision on our appeal at the meeting.
20 December 2006 • PPOA is advised of request for BOD appeal. • No confirmation or information ever received other than a VM from Bartholomew’s secretary. • We are contacted by Mr. Tyra with an offer of a “compromise”. • Several face to face and phone meetings ensue over the next couple of weeks in an attempt to avoid litigation on this and the continuing harassment issue.
PPOA’s “Compromise” • “Our way or the highway” • First draft language from Mr. Tyra is much too vague and provides nothing for us. • We draft a bilateral compromise and send to Mr. Tyra – he states everything in letter is agreeable with exception of Condition 5 of the agreement. • Condition 5 states that all BOD and ACC members must be in compliance with their respective C&Rs before further enforcement actions against us on issues other than the LPG tank. • We stress to Mr. Tyra that the unwarranted harassment must stop and Condition 5 is only way to ensure that it will. • BOD President Shawen informs Mr. Tyra that Condition 5 is unacceptable yet offers nothing in return. • Compromise agreement is dead.
Your Choices • PPOA management has been completely wrong on this issue no less than 4 times over a period of 13 years which necessarily implies the total incompetence on the part of this organization. Now this member is being held accountable for this past incompetence. • This Board is implicit in changing the long standing interpretation of the C&Rs (at least with respect to the LPG issue) to fit it’s agenda. Totally disregarding the agreements and promises of previous Boards and their designees is unnecessarily burdening to the present day membership. Furthermore, it is a truly unethical way to conduct business. -OR- Uphold this appeal based on consideration of the historical facts surrounding this issue, the unique situation we were unwillingly placed in when Airpark Drive was extended, and the numerous promises made to us by this Association over the last 13 years.
Ray and Lisa Stallings Thank you for taking the time to consider our appeal.
The use of the term “noticeable” in the C&Rs is obviously meant to prohibit individuals from placing a tank directly in front of their home or elsewhere on their property, where it would be so obvious, it would detract from the view of the home. “Noticeable” does not mean visible from some distant vantage point with the sole purpose of hoping to catch a glimpse of the tank.
This picture from a recent edition of the HCN shows a situation, albeit extreme, that would be defined as noticeable.
Is the Developer really the impetus behind this latest screening effort? That sure doesn’t appear to be the case to the casual observer.