The ACC made some pretty serious procedural mistakes in the 2007 denial of a remodel plan for the house at lot 34. This resulted in a re-hearing and reversal by a newly re-formed ACC, under the supervision of Association attorney Rick Shattuck. Rick provided us with a Washington State Bar Association publication describing, among other things, the procedural standards that an ACC needs to follow:
1. Did it exclude biased persons from the ACC?2. Did its members fully inform themselves' includingvisiting the site?3. Did it afford interested parties a full and fairopportunity to present information for the ACC toconsider?4. Did it gather all the relevant information it needed tohave in order to make a fully informed decision?5. Did it take steps to veriff that the information itintended to rely upon was accurate?6. Did it seek information from an "expert"?7. Did it actually consider the information it collected?8. Did it correctly apply the standards to the facts?9. Does its decision advance the common plan?10. Is the decision consistent with ACC decisions onsimilar applications?11. If the decision is different than decisions on pastsimilar applications, has the ACC articulated validand reasonable justifications for distinguishing thepresent application from the previous ones?12. Is its decision in writing?13. Does it set forth its findings and conclusionssupporting its decision-that is, does it explain how itgot from the evidence to the decision?14. If the decision denies approval of a proposal, does itdescribe why the proposal was rejected or whatalternative actions might be approved?
The new ACC ( not the same ACC that made the original decision ) members at the time this document was recieved by counsel included Karl Scherer, Nathan Kellogg, Roger Noll, and Ray Donahue.