A few comments in response:

1) The existing Resolution M-01 (the one presently in force) states: (in section 4.c) that "CPI activities shall include, but not be limited to, the inspection of properties"; and in section 6.b. that "When entering onto a lot to conduct an inspection, the purpose of entry shall be limited to observation and/or documentation." Again, those provisions are in the CURRENT Resolution M-01 and clearly contemplate CPI entering onto a property, as necessary, to make a limited visual inspection of conditions (which could be in violation of the DRs). 

2) As Linda Marin has already noted in an earlier comment, the revised (proposed) M-01 adds some language providing for what would be implicit -- an inspection by ARC in connection with a variance request, i.e., which might be necessary to act on the owner's request for a variance. In that event, ARC would seek permission from the owner. My guess is, if ARC needs to enter the property in order to review and consider a variance request, seeks permission from the property owner, and the owner does not grant permission, the variance request would simply be denied. There would be no reason for ARC to conduct an inspection of the property of an uncooperative owner seeking a variance. 

3) The new (proposed) M-01, like the existing one, calls for inspection procedures to be established by the GM. Certainly, procedures for inspections of properties will recognize privacy concerns and the need for appropriate constraints and limits. They may also require attempts to secure consent from the owner preliminarily, and as stated in the existing M-01 and the new (proposed) M-01, any visual inspection would be solely for the purpose of determining compliance or lack thereof with the DRs. 

4) Legally speaking: Clearly, all OPA owners purchase their lots subject to the DRs. The DRs, which encumber ownership and use of all OPA lots, contains many restrictions and requirements as to conditions on and uses of the property. This HOA regime, again in my view, carries with it an implicit condition that, to enforce the DRs and their conditions and restrictions, the OPA (and its CPI staff) must have a right to go onto lots -- again, in a very limited and judicious way -- if necessary to ascertain compliance with the DRs.

5) I do not know any of the specifics about the 1986-87 matter that Marty references. I was a (fairly average) undergraduate student at the time at the U of Delaware. :) 

Hope this helps.