DRAFT Proposed Covenant Updates 29 July 2021

Update: Due to availability conflicts, the 2021 Annual Meeting has been rescheduled to 25 September 2021 from 10:00 to 12:00 noon to be located in the Creston school gym. 

Proposed Covenant Updates are open for Public Comment...

Click on link here to view a sample of the 2021 Covenant Amendments Ballot. This post is nearly identical to an actual Official Ballot, except that in this sample there are no provisions for voting. This posting and the personal mailing that you have or will have received, is to notify you of proposed amendments for the September 18th 2021 HOA annual meeting as per Covenant 26.

Caution: Do not attempt to use this as a ballot to vote, it is for your reference only.

To request an absentee ballot or a proxy form, you must send your request to mail@manylakesmt.org or mail to MLHOA P.O. Box 2032, Bigfork, MT 59911.

When you will receive your copy of The OFFICIAL BALLOT at the annual meeting or if timely requested by mail or email, you will receive an actual EMBOSSED OFFICIAL BALLOT including the voting instructions. Thank you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 Responses

  1. I'm concerned with Covenant 10A2. Putting a septic leach field in the 30ft setback would require removing most if not all the trees and brush. One cannot plant trees or plants over a septic leach field. Grass would be OK. Is this really what we want?? Also, what has the board done to look for the Secretary/treasurer position that will be open? In my opinion, asking for volunteers at the annual meeting does not work.
  2. Concerning proposed amendment 10A2: Septic leach fields don't belong in any setback due to the required large areas of natural vegetation removal (likely in full view of the neighborhood). This degrades our natural forested environment both on the affected property and also on all neighboring properties. To me, setbacks are meant to leave swaths of mostly untouched land between properties (or roads and properties) and enhances the look and intrinsic value of Many Lakes. The original 1973 Covenants state "This declaration of restrictions being designed for the purpose of insuring only attractive residential use of the property without undue disturbance of its natural esthetic qualities." Somehow we seem to have wandered far afield from that concept and it needs to be reinstated in the next revision of the Many Lakes covenants.
  3. In agree with Mike Monteith and Vance Carolin about the setback issues. Additionally, I am concerned that the proposed amendments are not EASILY accessible to members (it requires a real hunt on the ML website) and may not be timely presented to all members by our Board. I urge all members to be familiar with these issues, and to participate in all voting processes.

Leave a ReplyLeave a Reply to Mike W Monteith