Original View Protections
Somerset developers’ brochures promised, ”PANORAMIC VIEWS. Breathtaking beautiful, unrivaled and unobstructed” and “ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL. Assures optimum lasting enjoyment and protection of your panoramic view site in Somerset and maintains the value of your home.”
The Covenants gave Building/Architectural Review Committees (BARCs) the authority and discretion to approve or reject any construction proposal and to handle view-related disputes.
The original intent of the Covenants included the following:
BARCs must assign a residence’s maximum height for each lot before construction was allowed to begin so smooth ridgelines could be created and maintained (Article 4)
Protect the originally created views (Article 4 & 10)
Prevent vegetation from obstructing a homeowner’s view (Article 10)
Once the Somerset community was developed, the BARCs stopped functioning. Somerset homeowners were left to fend for themselves leading to multiple disputes between neighbors.
A “First Amendment” to the Covenants empowering the CRC to replace the original BARCs was approved in approximately two-thirds of Somerset Covenants in the 1990s and early 2000s.
To aid consistency and public awareness of how the CRC would rule in view matters, a View Guideline was created (with legal oversight) in 2008 and modified slightly in 2016. “The Spirit of the Guideline” was “to preserve the views of a residence, the way they were, when the house was Built.”
Most thought this meant the view above the View Line was protected, while some thought only the view above the lowest element (water, city, mountain, horizon) was protected. The upper limit of construction was vague and subjective. Only the CRC could decide exactly how high a structure could be built and how much of a neighbor’s view could be obstructed. This begged the question of whether territorial and community views were included in the outlook and view that the Covenants were intended to protect.
In 2022 a new resident applied for a second story addition.
Our long-standing attorney, who helped write the View Guidelines, drafted the denial letter which said the View Guideline defined a line that shouldn’t be crossed and that territorial views were protected.
The denied applicant became the CRC chair. Our attorney retired, and the Board approved the CRC chair’s recommended replacement.
In 2023 the CRC approved a second story addition saying the area between the view line and the elements was not protected.
Then the CRC, with Board approval, changed the view guidelines:
Removed “To preserve the views of a residence, the way they were, when the house was built”
Deleted the view line and any reference to it
Said the view was only the identified elements (nothing below them).