MWHOA Special Meeting – 9/11/2010
Summary of Meeting
Strawberry Knoll Elementary School
1:30 Meeting called to by Michele Heffner
· 3 topics for discussion: Covenants; AERC Guidelines and Covenant Enforcement
· The Board’s responsibility is to enforce the covenants
· It was noted by a Member-Owner that 3 Directors, including the Secretary, were “unavailable” for this Special Meeting. The question was asked to whether we need a quorum of Directors to hold this Special Meeting, or just a 10% quorum of Member-Owners. Michele responded that there was no quorum requirement as it was a member meeting.
· The meeting offers opportunities for members to discuss improvements, and changes and present to the Board
· Michele will call on people and keep notes
· Copies of covenants, AERC guidelines, AERC architectural change requests and the enforcement process are provided to meeting attendees
· Covenants last updated December 2003; a majority of homeowners are required to approve any changes to the covenants
· Covenants are generally broad with details contained in the AERC guidelines; which are easier to update and change
· Clarification on what a majority would be; 53 out of 104 homeowners was confirmed by Association attorney
· Michele summarized results from survey. There were 24 respondents; respondents were satisfied with multiple communication channels; most do not want their names published on the website; some specific comments on the covenants include a respondent wanted other fence choices other than split rail; one respondent believes the board does not keep up with technological changes in building materials and wants to be able to install a metal roof.
· There was a discussion on the issue of the metal roof. A homeowner had requested this change and took the initiative to get 15 signatures from neighbors on Mourning Dove. The question was asked if several neighbors approved, why not allow for this change (which was disapproved by the Board). The response was this would be a significant architectural change in the neighborhood and the entire neighborhood would need to have an opportunity to comment, particularly with a significant change such as roof building material. At the time of disapproval, the Board suggested the homeowner bring it up as a topic at the Annual Meeting in November.
· There was also clarification on the meaning of the neighbor’s signature on the AERC request form; the Association attorney stated the purpose of the signatures was for notification to neighbors, not approval. The AERC committee will generally wait up to 10 days in case a neighbor decides to object.
· A question was asked about the process for requesting a change to covenants. The Association attorney said several methods to initiate process include: Board meeting; petitions; annual meetings etc. Board would gauge the sentiment of the community to change covenant/guidelines and make a decision.
· There was discussion on the level of involvement by homeowners. Michele again appealed to homeowners to consider participating on the Board or a committee.
· A description of the current covenant enforcement process was presented by John Patton, AERC committee chair. Went to semi-annual surveys after previous process of logging complaints proved to be too random and inconsistent.
· Discussion arose about the number of renters that seem to be in the neighborhood and the concern over compliance. John explained covenant violation letters go directly to the homeowner since they are responsible for the upkeep of the house. The Association attorney provided some suggestions on how to get a more accurate accounting of houses that are rented. In Montgomery County, you have to have a license to rent a property. There are some changes that could be made to the covenants. Some HOAs have a leasing policy. Some are able to get language into the lease regarding compliance to HOA covenants and bylaws. Some HOAs can step in and evict tenants who are not complying. Other ways include language in the Bylaws that, for example, states a homeowner must live in the house for x years before renting out to prevent pure investments. Other HOAs restrict the percentage of rentals.
· The discussion continued on the covenant enforcement process. There was objection to the way the friendly letters are worded, first they are inconsistent and then the wording should say alleged violation. This homeowner wants to ensure due process to the homeowner. The Association lawyer stated he reviewed the letters at the start of the process and doesn’t see any liability in the language. Michele stated the friendly letters are working in terms of compliance but that the board will review the letters for clarity. The Board Lawyer also said he would review the friendly letter as to using the term “alleged” which the Member-Owner indicated is recommended as a good business practice by the C.C.O.C. (2005) Common Ownership Community Manual & Resource Guide. The Member-Owner also indicated that by not using the word “alleged”, the Board creates the perception that the homeowner has already been judged “guilty” by the Board.
· This same Member-Owner also indicated that the Board has been involved with two C.C.O.C. mediation sessions with two separate homeowners, one in 2008-2009, and now one in 2010. The first one according to official minutes cost the MWHOA $4,800; and the second dispute remains ongoing with an unknown cost. It was noted that the cost to the homeowner is only $50, but apparently the cost to Montgomery West is much more. The Member-Owner concluded that by using the word “alleged” the Board was providing itself “legal cover” should the homeowner appeal to the CCOC on any one of several grounds: 1) lack of apparent fair and impartial due process; 2) lack of due diligence in STRICTLY following the letter notification requirements of the Covenant; or 3) enforcement of “unreasonable rules” such as rust spots on mailboxes/chimney caps or algae on house siding.
· This Member-Owner also pointed out the Covenant Article V (a) under Right of Enjoyment only allows “The right of the Association to adopt and promulgate reasonable rules…”. This Member-Owner indicated he has reviewed the “Friendly Letters” from 2008, 2009, and letters to date of 2010. The Association President asked what he had found. The response was that: 1) the letters are inconsistent as to title; 2) that some homeowners have received up to five (5) notices; 3) that the process appeared to be in conflict with the Covenant letter notification process, 4) was confusing, and that 5) issues such as writing letters for rust spots on mailboxes, leaning mailboxes, rust spots on chimney caps, or algae on house siding, was an open invitation to additional and costly (to the Association that is!) C.C.O.C. mediation sessions. The Homeowner was asked to mark up the letters as to how they should be written and he replied that he already had (letters were provided to the President after the meeting).
· The Board Lawyer also said he would review a new letter template to be used by MWHOA.
· Another homeowner asked if the “Friendly Letters” are the same as the letters mentioned in the Covenant; the response from the Board Lawyer was “yes”. The Homeowner also mentioned that the current letters do not mention 15 days and the Board lawyer said “yes, that is right, it doesn’t mention 15 days”. The homeowner then added that this could be confusing to members.
· One homeowner stated she did not like the inspections. The homeowner to homeowner approach is preferable. John mentioned we try to rule in favor of homeowners whenever possible. Trying to avoid selective enforcement.
· A request was made that Board follow an explicit formal process and look at the notification letter and use a standard template and make sure 15 days consistent with covenants. Perhaps put the friendly letter into the AERC guidelines.
· Based on feedback from the special meeting and the survey, there was no consensus that the covenants need to be changed at this time. The Board will review the “friendly letter” and clarify the language to better reflect the process laid out in the covenants. The Board is actively looking for a 3rd member of the AERC committee.
· It was indicated that the Board would make the A.E.R.C. Guidelines a standard agenda item at the Annual Meeting and to invite Member-Owner feedback on same.
3:05 pm Meeting adjourned