AURORA | City Council members unanimously approved an update of the city code to revise Aurora’s rules on construction defects after a lengthy debate from homeowners and real estate professionals.
The unanimous vote makes final a new legal framework to give builders the right to repair defects before litigation is pursued, requiring that the majority of homeowners in a homeowners association approve of any lawsuits, and that builders be allowed to offer monetary settlements to homeowners in lieu of repairs.
Multiple residents living in HOAs spoke against the ordinance, citing their own issues dealing with developers who produced shoddy housing that later had to be addressed via the courts.
Brian Matise, of Tollgate Crossing HOA, said the city would be wasting money by going against state construction defect law and inviting a legal and political fight by instituting the new rules.
“The only way this ordinance can work is by discouraging or preventing HOAs from pursuing legitimate defect claims,” Matise said.
A number of other residents cited their concerns over the potential of having limited access to legal counsel when considering action against a builder — claims that the city’s attorney sought to dispel as simply being a means for HOA members to make “a more careful decision” in considering litigation.
Councilwoman Barbara Cleland, who previously voted against the ordinance on an earlier reading, took a stern approach to addressing the most-recent legislative session and what she viewed as a failure on the part of state lawmakers.
“Right now I feel very sad that our own Legislature is totally ignoring the citizens of the state of Colorado and those people, especially, that would like to buy a condominium or a townhouse and they can’t do it,” she said.
Cleland stressed that she still hoped to work with elected officials in the Legislature to find a better way to address concerns on both sides.
“Developers have a right to make a profit. Developers do not have a right to do bad construction,” she said, adding that ultimately Aurora does not have enough inventory of condos and town homes to purchase.
“That’s what this is addressing,” she said.
Councilman Bob Roth, acknowledging his three decades in the building industry, spoke in favor of the ordinance, accusing attorneys specializing in construction defect cases of being greedy in boasting of the verdicts they have secured on behalf of homeowners.
IN OTHER ACTION:
- City Council moved ahead on the second of a four-part series of actions needed for the annexation of approximately 3,000 acres of land on the city’s eastern periphery. Duane Senn, with the Laredo Highline Neighborhood Association, presented a top-10 list of objections to the planned annexation, citing its cost and questioning the necessity of the annexation of the properties. As multiple council members and city staff reiterated during the meeting, the council would not be debating and voting on the merits of the proposed annexations until a later meeting.
- About 50 residents from the Danbury Park neighborhood were in attendance to voice their disapproval of a proposal to rezone a nearby parcel slated for development by Century Homes. Many spoke during public comment over the looming application, which they said would not fit with the aesthetics of the neighboring communities.
- Multiple residents of eastern Aurora took time during public comment to implore council members to carefully consider a series of pending oil and gas drilling applicants. Nicole Johnston of East Aurora Community Development, speaking on behalf of a number of her group’s members, told council members, “it is within your power to have the oil and gas companies and their operation sites be held accountable.”
- An ordinance to expand the permitted uses of the half-circle plot of land at Tower Road and Andes Circle was unanimously approved.
- Council unanimously approved an ordinance to authorize the Aurora Urban Renewal Authority to use eminent domain powers with regard to a handful of properties at the Regatta Plaza shopping center that are planned to be redeveloped as part of the Nine Mile Station Urban Renewal Plan. Former city attorney and Ward IV council candidate Charlie Richardson commented on walking the ward as part of his campaign and hearing the widespread citizen concerns about eminent domain. “Let’s face it, eminent domain … is not popular,” he said, but noted that the government’s power to condemn blighted properties has led to significant quality of life improvements for Aurora and other cities.
- Council members conquered a bout of giggling in time to vote 8-1 in favor of the introduction of an ordinance for amending the city’s rules on home-grow marijuana operations. The new rules, if adopted on final reading, would curtail the number of marijuana plants in any given residence in the city to 12 plants. The giggling was triggered by discussion of unrelated people living in the same residence having their state-dictated limit possibly curtailed. Mayor Steve Hogan jokingly referred to it as “picking on poor, unrelated college students.” Councilman Bob Broom was the lone dissenting vote.
And of city inspectors? Where are they? Checking on who’s licensed or not, doing final inspections on electricity, plumbing, roofing, etc? What of they?
whats your point?
My point is fairly evident. If inspectors are doing their jobs, poor workmanship and wrong materials, wouldn’t be on the job to begin with, they would ‘red tag’ poor work, and wrong material, thus making this all moot.
For once, I’m 100% with you on this. We had some ‘inspectors’ come to our house to sign off on a furnace installation that had been done 15 YEARS ago (before we owned the house). Somehow, it got off their to-do list. Then, when they came finally, the inspection lasted less than 15 seconds. Not sure what they checked in that amount of time. Yeah, inspectors doing their jobs might head off some of this shoddy work that builders do. (Our house also had what appeared to be ductwork for the dryer that went to the roof. Problem is, it didn’t go to the roof, so the guy who came out to clean the ducts found instead a good part of our attic loaded with a mini-mountain of highly flammable lint. But then, where were the inspectors on that one?
yeah, ok, good point. Maybe we’re missing something here. Maybe the inspectors arent inspecting the areas of consumer concerns. hummmm
lots to absorb here
“requiring that the majority of homeowners in a homeowners association approve of any lawsuits”…..that seems that it makes it difficult for homeowners,
Folks, go to your city council meetings. City council is not necessarily smarter than anyone else, yet they are powerful.
As a longtime HOA Board member of an HOA who has recently sued and won a settlement against a developer, I have firsthand experience. This is a travesty. Developers know that HOA’s cannot get 51% of homeowners to show up for free cupcakes – much less get them to vote to litigate.
With any serious construction defect, it’s likely that not every homeowner in a community will be affected. So even if an HOA could get full participation from homeowners, only the affected homeowners will vote to litigate. Unaffected homeowners will not because they know that voting to litigate will affect their property values and ability to sell their units.
Meanwhile, developers will simply claim that they are not responsible for the defect, or even that no defect exists. Homeowners with defective properties will be left with enormous financial burdens to bear.
I would strongly advise anyone reading this to avoid purchasing a new condo or town home in Aurora. If your unit has issues, you’ll be left to deal with them on your own.
Totally agree. The builders must have been all over these new rules and knew how to minimize their responsibility for their own bad work.
Absolutely right! There is almost no way that any association will get a 51% vote to litigate. Does anyone know if this majority vote includes voted from units owned by the developer (or one of his affiliates)? We know which way those votes will go.
It is true that legal fees can eat up one third to one half of the total settlement, but compare that to ZERO.
The best best is to prevent defective construction in the first place, and there’s no real incentive for that to happen. Developers have too many loopholes to dump the expense on owners, and this local ordinance is one of them.
At one time, when developers did not control entire projects and communities for years during construction (and sometimes beyond), their reputation mattered. If construction was shoddy, word would spread fast and no one would buy from that developer. Now developers — especially the mass producers — just play the numbers game. Quantity over quality. Require out-of-court arbitration and confidential settlements, so that the consumer has no way of knowing what kind of workmanship they are buying.
Your local government does cursory inspections — or even accepts the developer’s hired engineer’s OK on the project. They don’t care, because owners have to pay for ongoing maintenance and repair anyway — not the government, not with tax dollars. But they’re more than happy to rake in the revenue from property taxes.
There’s theses things called “building codes” and are supposed to be followed. Technically, if your home isn’t up to code your home owners insurance won’t cover it. If you don’t get a certified electrician to fix a short and your home burns down, your outta luck. The city of Aurora is liable for not enforcing Federal Building Codes, not the developer. I’ll let the actuaries know building laws are not being followed here.
✦ Junk Housing gets the Pass Card for wine & dine builders.
Or as Peter Boyles likes to say, ‘winky winky’.
This is all liberal agenda, here in Fort Collins any development over 40 acres must include apartments and a store. This is U.N. Agenda 21 at work, it’s buried inside our building codes.
The issue is that city planners are really social engineers now days. That’s how they’re trained, and their membership in the American Planning Association a very liberal group proves this agenda.