Naomi Pierce spoke next. She had brought the original assessment, the correspondence record, and the preliminary post-incident findings. She explained that the county had surveyed eleven neighborhoods at elevated risk and that its advice to Cedar Hollow concerned vegetation continuity, upper-zone hydrant performance, and access limitations. She emphasized that the association had been free to study the recommendations and even decline them after proper evaluation.
Then she described what had occurred during the fire. The upper hydrants had supplied water but struggled to sustain the required demand, while the normal booster operation was unavailable during the outage. The responding crew had used my tank as a supplemental static source for a thirty-one-minute period before additional water tenders arrived. She said the arrangement had been useful because it was accessible, filled, and correctly connected for the equipment used that day.
A woman near the back raised her hand and asked whether five thousand gallons could protect the development if a larger fire struck. Naomi answered no, not by itself, and went on to explain why emergency preparedness needed layers: vegetation management, evacuation access, adequate water supply, pre-incident planning, and residents willing to follow instructions. She said one private tank should not be treated as a substitute for the association addressing its larger risks. I appreciated her more for that answer than for anything she said about my installation.
When she finished, Grant asked the attorney to speak. Doug Pella was a tired-looking man in his fifties, with reading glasses hanging low on his nose and a legal pad full of small, precise handwriting. He had spent the previous week reviewing the declaration, bylaws, notice records, contractor communications, and board minutes. He did not look happy to be there, and I did not blame him.
Doug began with a caution that I wished every resident could have heard before the dispute started. A county construction permit, he said, did not by itself override an association's enforceable private covenants. Equally, a board could not create new restrictions simply by declaring that something offended the community's taste. The association had to point to a valid provision, interpret it reasonably, and apply the enforcement procedures it had promised its members.
He then turned to my file. The tank had been installed within a designated rear utility area and did not appear to be the sort of ornamental detached structure the cited section was drafted to control. The rule's reference to visibility from common property was problematic because the principal sightline came from a county-controlled lane. The association had received the permit and technical documents, yet there was no recorded architectural determination identifying the prohibited feature.
Doug paused before discussing procedure. The required compliance conference had not occurred, he said, and the escalating daily charges had not been properly approved in the available minutes. The contractor had been asked to perform an access survey without a recorded authorization, and the association had no evidence of my consent to enter my rear yard. If the board attempted to enforce the threatened removal without resolving those issues, he warned, the association could face serious legal exposure.