The issue wound up in court, and Circuit Judge A.P. Fuller sided with the association.

Still convinced he should be allowed the build the 18-by-16-foot shed near the home he bought in 1996, Nedved took the issue to the state Supreme Court — and won.

The justices on Thursday ruled that the homeowners group acted beyond its authority in specifying that sheds in the subdivision can be no larger than 10 by 12.

Nedved said he took the case as far as he did “based on principle.”

He said he was eager to get started immediately on the shed, which will measure 14 feet by 18 feet at the largest.

“If I had the energy to drive to a lumber yard tonight, I’d probably go get some (materials),” he said Thursday evening, laughing.

The association’s architectural control committee rejected Nedved’s shed construction plans because they did not conform to rules the committee had adopted on sheds. Various restrictions the homeowners’ group approved in 1994 under a covenant for the subdivision provided little in the way of guidance on sheds, prompting the committee to devise its own rules.

Rejecting those rules, the state Supreme Court said the association committee could not amend the 1994 covenant without a 75 percent vote of all lot owners. Because that was not done, the committee had no authority to establish rules for sheds, the justices said.

Nedved said the association erred in that it didn’t go through the proper process in changing the covenant, which they did four years after he moved in.

The Supreme Court said the existing neighborhood covenant allows the committee to evaluate Nedved’s shed plans only to determine whether the building will fit in with the design of homes in the subdivision, the committee is satisfied with the quality of workmanship and materials and the shed is suitably located.

Nedved’s original plan was to build a shed that will look like a miniature version of his house. He hopes to be able to fit at least two four-wheelers, a lawn mower and other items into the shed.

He still plans to go to the board and talk to them about how the shed will look and “make sure that they’re happy with the way it will look.”

Nedved called the court process “too long, too drawn out and just a ridiculous process.” And it was a process that cost him plenty of money to complete.

“I’ve easily got the most expensive shed in the development, once I get it built and once I’m done with legal fees,” he said.

Rapid Reply

Send us your Rapid Reply

Name:

Email: (optional)

Comments:

Image Verification: (Case sensitive)