Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| 09/ 5/25 22:50:12 | [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4 ] |
| Subject: An open letter to the WSHOA Board | |
|
Author: John Kirian |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 25 2009, 17:51:46 After receiving the letter from the HOA today concerning covenants, I authored a reply that I would like to share with the entire neighborhood for thoughts, input and feedback. This letter was mailed to Assocation managment today. I apologize for any formatting issue from the cut/paste process: Willoughby Station Home Owners Association c/o Association Management Services PO Box 1126 Brentwood, TN 37024-1126 3/25/2009 RE: Covenants WSHOA Board of Directors; This is an open letter to the WSHOA Board of Directors, which will also be posted on the web for all Willoughby Station residents to read and comment. I received today the annual meeting packet, including a letter concerning the covenants. My thoughts and input on this are lengthy, and warrant more then the few answers you requested. First and foremost, the board needs to understand that to take on the covenants is a major undertaking. Enforcement of the covenants in their current state can not be accomplished fairly. Enforcement would have to be an all or nothing commitment, which means to begin enforcement would find most homes in the neighborhood with some sort of violation, including many board members. Some violations could not be corrected without the homeowners being forced to move, or give up a loving member of their family. More on this as I point out problems with some of the individual covenants later in this letter. Another approach, to modify the covenants to be more enforceable, yet reasonable, will be a major task. This will require a committee to tackle the modifications, legal counsel involvement, that very difficult 2/3 approval of homeowners, as well as VA and FHA approval. While this is a major and difficult task, this is the approach that should be taken. The covenants are 25 years old, do not reflect our neighborhood, or even the realities of today. To re-enforce the points I am trying to make, I’ve gone thru article 3 of the covenants and would like to point out some of the many inconsistencies and issues with the restrictions in this section. I’ve concentrated solely on article 3, although there are issues with other parts of the covenants. As a disclaimer, I am not an attorney, and am not representing any sort of legal opinion, only common sense from a layman. 3.1 Single Family Residential Construction: Several homes in the neighborhood have been converted to apartments. I am aware of at least one that was split into 2 units. 3.2 Approval of Plans: This article is pretty long, but the bottom line is that all plans for construction, reconstruction, remodeling, etc. need to be approved by the board. The problem with this article is that it has never been enforced, and after homes have been around for 10-20+ years, many have been or are getting remodeled. So every bathroom, kitchen, bonus room remodel that has taken place in the neighborhood is in violation. Does the board really want to become involved and liable for approving all remodeling plans? Is it really necessary that they are involved if the remodeling is solely on the interior of a home? 3.9 Storage Tanks and Refuse Disposal: A couple issues with this section. First, the mention of “no exposed above-ground tanks or receptacles shall be permitted for the storage of fuel…” would include propane tanks. Guess we will all have to get rid of our propane grills. Also, the part about concealing all equipment, coolers, and garbage cans from pretty much everyone is pretty much impossible. No matter where you put your garbage can, someone, somewhere will be able to see it. 3.10 Clothes Lines: During this time of economic hardship do we really want to tell people they can’t save a few $’s by line drying their clothes if they want to? What about the fact that it’s currently “in” to be “green”? 3.14 Outside Lighting: This prohibits exterior flashing lights, floodlights, spotlights, etc. Would this include those homes that have outdoor spotlights aimed at or up their house? What about Christmas decorations that incorporate flashing lights and or spotlights? 3.15 Antennae and Satellite Dishes: This is unenforceable (as determined by the board) as the courts have determined that the ability for private citizens to receive over-the-air communications can not be hindered. 3.17 Recreational Equipment: This one has gotten some attention lately concerning the moveable basketball goals in many driveways, mine included. First, a previous board determined that non-permanent bb goals were allowed, and many in the neighborhood (including myself) used that interpretation to purchase such goals. A change of enforcement on this would be unfair. Besides the bb goal issue, this provision has some major interpretation problems; starting with the definition of “recreational equipment”. Is this a bike? A motorcycle? A razor (scooter)? A wagon? Balls (playing catch)? etc. If so, then these things can only be used to the rear of all lots. Will the board approve the installation of cement slaps in back yards? Seriously, do we really want a neighborhood where everyone is forced to hibernate to their own back yards when enjoying any outdoor recreational activity? Or do we want a neighborly place where we can enjoy the company of others and can hear the laughter of children as they play in their driveways? 3.19 Maintenance: This is another restriction with an interpretation problem. Who is to say what is “attractive”? Who is to say what is appropriate pruning and cutting? One person may enjoy the Disneyland look of bushes, pruned just perfect in nice little neat packages, while another may enjoy a more natural look, with just enough pruning to keep it within a certain size or height. Which is correct is a matter of opinion. 3.21 Use of Premises: Some problems here, the biggest being the “private, single-family residential purposes” statement. Does this prohibit renting? What is the definition of single-family (i.e., does that include in-laws, other extended family)? 3.22 Animals and Pets: What is considered “small dogs and cats”? Is there a weight or size associated with this? Is it 10 lbs, 25, 50, 100? Does it include breeds like Huskies, Rottweiler’s, German Sheppard’s, St. Bernard’s? Will we be asking residents to give up their loving pets? What is “reasonable numbers”? 2, 3, more? Who determines this? 3.23 Nuisances and Unsightly Materials: This starts with the statement that “No house or other structure on any Lot shall be used for any business or commercial purpose.” My interpretation of this is that everyone who works from home (myself including), rents their home out, run’s a business out of a home (yes, we have a few), has a candle, avon or pampered-chef party, etc. is in violation. Since I need my job in order to pay my mortgage, will I be asked to move out of the neighborhood since I work from home? 3.24 Hobbies and Activities: Cancel the 4th of July and New’s Year’s eve fireworks, they are prohibited. As is the “assembly and disassembly” of any “mechanical device”. I recently replace some faucets, is that a mechanical device? Did I violate the covenants yet again? Bottom line, as you can see from just the few examples that I have pointed out, our covenants are in dire need of rework. There is no conceivable reason that I shouldn’t be able to work from a home office, or our friends up the street should have to give up their German Sheppard. What is wrong with our children riding their bikes on our driveways, or even to the common area/pools? The issues can be summed up: • If any covenant is enforced, they all need to be enforced equally • How would enforcement even be taken on in a fair and equitable manner? • Violations that have been permitted in the past, or interpreted as OK by previous boards, should not be reversed • The covenants need to be rewritten to reflect fair, yet enforceable restrictions which concentrate on aesthetics, safety and property values, yet incorporate today’s neighborhood values. I appreciate your consideration to my thoughts, and should the HOA decide to work on updating the covenants I would certainly like to be part of the process. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, John J. Kirian, Jr. (personal information deleted) [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| Subject | Author | Date |
| What about 3.18 (No oil drilling) | Sean | Wed, Mar 25 2009, 18:44:30 |
| open letter | neighbor | Wed, Mar 25 2009, 21:58:59 |
|
||
| Already been said | Concerned Neighbor | Thu, Mar 26 2009, 20:08:32 |
| Meeting tonight? | Tom H. | Tue, Apr 07 2009, 11:54:12 |
|
||
|
Forum timezone: GMT-6 VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB: Before posting please read our privacy policy. VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems. Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved. |