Quoted:
Oh, think of all the bright colors you can paint the outside of your fence!!!

Quoted:
Seems to me a HOA couldn't enforce any rules after the fact someone moves in their house.

Quoted:
I'm resuming construction in the am.

Quoted:
I just moved into a house I bought. No HOA, but there is a covenant, which is somewhat similar. For those not familiar, it's a set of rules for the neighborhood (started in the late 70's) drafted by the builder, and maintained by the community. There have been no changes, and there isn't an active board or neighborhood meeting.

I read the rules prior to moving in. Rules state that fences are allowed for and should be limited to: Privacy areas and animal control. It also states that the fence must be adjacent to the primary dwelling, and fencing entire lots, and along lot lines, is not desirable (It is obviously discouraged). I told my neighbors that I am building a fence from one side of the house, to about half of the back yard, to keep my dogs in the yard. I discussed it in detail with the next door neighbor who it affects the most (it will create a fence line on about 75% of our property boundry). He doesn't seemed to be thrilled about it,  and suggests an invisible fence. After more discussion, he seems amenable, and walks the property line with me and shoots the shit for an hour. He seems to be a really nice guy and we are going to get along great.

A few days later I am 50% complete building the fence. I get a phone call from a different neighbor from up the hill in the next community telling me it is illegal to build my fence that she can see from her deck. I tell her thanks for your concern and the call and go back to work. An hour later the next door neighbor shows up and now claims that he doesn't like the idea, believes it violates the rules (says it isn't adjacent to the house) and it's too big. By the way he is friends with the busy body from up the street who called earlier. Like I mentioned, and discussed in detail with the next door neighbor, it connects on one side of the house, runs about 75% of the length of the back yard, and 50% of the width of the back yard, before reconnecting with the back porch.

Adjacent...I don't think this word means what he thinks it means. He seems to believe that it infers some sort of size limitation. I don't think it does. I think West Nevada is adjacent to East California...



I don't want to be the new guy pissing in everyone's wheaties, and would like to get along with everyone. I've gone out of my way to be nice, and explain how it is not only legal, but extremely common in this area. And by the way it is my yard. I paid a shit ton of money for it, and the fence I'm building is not only a good looking fence, but there are no less than 25 of them that I've counted within 1 mile.

I know this is probably boring as hell, but I wanted to get some opinions to see if I'm being a dick or am out of line. I'm sort of known to be a dick.

http://i1131.photobucket.com/albums/m545/roostercogburn3/fencedebaclediagram.png

Note the little arrows that say uphill are pretty important, as the grade from the main neighborhood road on both sides is pretty significant, that's how the mansions happen to have a view of the backyard.

Also, for those who are amateur or real lawyers, here is an ipotato pic of the applicable portion of the covenant:
http://i1131.photobucket.com/albums/m545/roostercogburn3/697a7c02-a48f-45a1-8d45-4407c1a11ebb.jpg

Quoted:
I'd simply build the fence. Then, I'd get a really kick-ass sound system.

Every time my neighbor was in his yard, I'd play Lou Reed's "Metal Machine Music" on an endless loop.

Then... uh... profit?

Quoted:
your fence, your yard, your interpretation of the vague-ass rules.

let 'em sue you if they want.

Quoted:
.............................

They don't like it in their view. From the diagram it seems they can't see it, but it is quite the hill, and they can see half the city from up there, including 75% of my backyard. I happened to mention this to them as well. The fact that they can see half the city, which includes thousands of fences seems to also be irrelevant to the busy bodies. I'm resuming construction in the am.

Quoted:
Does it say anything in the rules in regards to building an outhouse?

we conclude that the intention of the covenants here is to protect present and future property values of the subdivision by “benefit[ing] from the natural advantages of its particular location.”

Quoted:
The covenants are detailed while at the same time being vague.  Sounds like a "know it when you see it" sort of thing.

The deed restrictions for my property are:
No single or double-wides.  Separate structures such as sheds must follow the architecture of the home.  No cattle.  No swine.
- and that's almost verbatim.  

Your covenants have a lot more detail than this.  You've got at least 131 sections to the covenants.

A photograph would help.

Quoted:
Is that one section of your fence really 87'?  If it is, were you appropriately asked for your screen name?

Quoted:
The covenants, lacking in specificity as they may be, are consistent with covenants of other developments, and consistent with wording/intent battled out in courts and courts of appeal.

In 40 years how many fences have been erected in the neighborhood?  I'm guessing not many.  It looks like you have 3 neighbors, maybe 5 if you go off on some angles.  Your neighbor to your left wasn't terribly excited about having a physical fence erected.  Your neighbor up the hill is less excited and has chosen an odd route of deciding that no fences should be erected in her view shed.  That there are countless other properties down the hill and in view that may have fences that fly against covenant wording is irrelevant - since those property owners didn't sign on to your deed restrictions.

Your neighborhood/development sounds very nice.  It sounds like there is a very nice view from your area.  So, you've got to understand that you are in your neighbors' view shed, and to some extent, they are likewise in your view shed, and it's a very nice looking area - correct me if I'm wrong, but this might be one of the things that attracted you to this house.  Your development doesn't have any control of what goes on in view way down the hill, but they do have say in the development.

Without seeing an actual photo, a split rail fence sounds appropriate for the area.  But again, in 40 years, nobody's seen fit to erect any fence there.

While the details of the wording may be vague, I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say the intent of the covenants is vague.  The covenants, 131 sections worth, were instituted to preserve the present and future value of the area.

Speaking for my county, there aren't many places that have covenants as detailed as yours - I can think of only one place, if that.  In that one development, if someone adopted a "my land, my taxes, my rules - get bent" attitude, there's no way I could side with them, because there are numerous countless other places where they could have built/bought/moved that didn't have such existing, codified rules.