At the September 23, 2025 meeting, board member David Noordhoff publicly explained the reasons for his resignation.
Although Mr. Noordhoff resigned in mid-June, the board did not disclose his resignation at the July 22, 2025 meeting or formally address it at the September meeting. Many homeowners first learned of both the resignation and its underlying concerns only when Mr. Noordhoff spoke during the open forum at the end of the meeting.
That context matters.
What Mr. Noordhoff Objected To
In plain terms, Mr. Noordhoff objected to the board’s decision to amend the architectural guidelines in ways that conflict with the recorded restrictive covenants.
Other board members suggested this was acceptable because:
- future boards or homeowners could repeal the changes later, and
- objections stemmed from misunderstanding, not substance.
Noordhoff disagreed — strongly.
Why That Reasoning Is a Problem
Architectural guidelines are intended to operate under the restrictive covenants, not override them. When there is a conflict, the covenants control.
The idea that the board can knowingly adopt guidelines that conflict with the covenants — and justify it by saying someone else can fix it later — reverses that hierarchy.
It also reframes legitimate objections as confusion, rather than disagreement.
Noordhoff viewed that approach as improper governance and did not want to be associated with it.
The July 22, 2025 Meeting
The guideline amendments were adopted at the July 22, 2025 meeting — the same meeting at which seven motions were passed with little explanation or discussion.
That meeting triggered multiple homeowner complaints about transparency and later prompted Board President Denney to address those concerns at the September 23 meeting.
What the Amended Guidelines Did
The amended architectural guidelines attempted to retroactively legitimize existing fence violations by asserting that approvals had been issued under prior management.
Former management company Cambridge Management disputes that characterization. According to its representative, no fences that violated the covenants were approved under its oversight.
At a minimum, there is a clear factual disagreement.
The amended guidelines also introduced several provisions that conflict with the restrictive covenants, including:
- Allowing fence heights up to six feet
- Permitting different fence heights for villas
- Allowing single-family homes to use picket or privacy-style fencing
- Permitting lattice on fence tops
Each of these changes alters restrictions that can only be modified through a formal amendment approved by the membership.
Why the Resignation Matters
Mr. Noordhoff’s resignation was not about style preferences or minor disagreements.
It was about whether the board should:
- knowingly adopt guidelines that conflict with the covenants, and
- dismiss objections by suggesting homeowners simply don’t understand.
That disagreement goes to the core of lawful HOA governance.
Final Thought
Resignations don’t happen in a vacuum.
When a board member resigns rather than participate in actions he believes exceed the board’s authority, homeowners should pay attention to the governance issues raised.
This episode helps explain why concerns about transparency, enforcement, and board authority keep resurfacing.
Update
The board has since quietly removed these guideline changes.
It is unclear whether a new resolution was adopted to do so, and no such action appears in any meeting minutes.