We would like to understand how the board plans to demonstrate and validate the upcoming voting process on the proposed changes to the POA and covenants to ensure a transparent outcome. Will owners have the opportunity to be present during the vote count? With the past decisions the board has made without the owners knowledge or approval for significant use of budget, I think it be best to make sure owners not on the board should also see the numbers coming in for or against the boards proposal.
Additionally, we have attached a breakdown for all neighbors here that highlights aspects of the proposed covenants that still have not been openly discussed by the board, along with potential implications they can bring to the property owners on the lake. In this link we also describe how we operate our STR to protect this beautiful lake and neighbors around. Response to POA Meeting
I think everyone would like more clarification. While I don’t know for sure I suspect most owners on the lake would like to restrict STVR as they have the potential to distract the sanctity of the lake and potentially decrease property values. What is not clear is the path to take to get there.
That being said I applaud the board for taking steps to attempt a resolution. The board does have public meetings that are not well attended otherwise maybe a better discussion could have occurred. The lack of communication is both the fault of the board and the property owners. Regardless that is water under the bridge and there is no benefit in discussing the past further.
Just for clarification the Lake Use Agreement and the Talahi Lake Estates covenants as they exist today are separate documents. The Lake Use Agreements are not covenants by my understanding. Talahi Lake Estates is actually a set of 5 different convenants. One for each section of the houses on Suncrest. Section V consists of 15 houses, Section IV has 10 homes., etc. That is why the homes on Suncrest are numbered in the 100’s, 200’s, 300;s, 400’s and 500’s. If you want to know what section applies to you look at your address. While they are largely similar they are actually filed separately.
This is not a Lake Use Agreement issue nor is it an issue for Scarboro Cove. Scarboro Cove has already added a restriction on STVR in their HOA documents. It is strictly an issue for the 62 homes on Suncrest Blvd on the lake. It is not a Lake Board issue although everyone on the lake benefits with the added restriction on STVR.
You are correct about the covenants. Out of 62 homes on Suncrest Blvd. 41 of them are in violation of the covenants in one form or another today. The existing Lake Board has no power to enforce any covenants in Scarboro Cove or Talahi Lake Estates. Voting to install a POA to enforce covenants is a non starter for those already in violation and I doubt there is any way a POA would be approved. Nobody wants to give someone else control over their property.
Without discussing with lawyers I don’t know the best path forward. If a simple update to the existing covenants could be accomplished without the creation of a ruling board that would be ideal.
Please correct me if I misunderstand or have misspoken.
Wes
Thanks for your reply, Wes.
The restrictive covenants state the following…
NOW, THEREFORE, the said Owner hereby agrees and declares
that the following restrictive covenants are applicable to and
shall bind lots within Talahi Lake Estates, Phase 2, … after which
time the said covenants shall be automatically
extended for successive periods of ten (10) years, unless an
instrument signed by a majority of the Owners of the lots shall
have been recorded, agreeing to change said covenants in whole
or in part.
Now, I’m not a lawyer, but it seems the sections (as you stated, the covenants are separated by section) can vote to change the covenants with a majority of the owners of the lots, without all of the POA proposal’s fees with no cap/ fining schedule without limit or limiting owners use of the lake (common property use automatically suspended until balance paid in full, even if disputed). Not sure if it would be an easy task to get all 5 sections on the same page, but I think if the owners approached this in a collaborative effort it could be done.
As you stated, there are a lot of covenants not being followed, but none of them are preventing their neighbors from enjoying their property, as far as I know. The owners could amend the covenants to update a few items. A few thoughts/ideas …
Remove the restrictions on fences, as long as adjacent neighbors agree on the fence height. An owner brought this up at the meeting that he had large dogs and needed to keep them in his yard… this seems a fair ask.
Add a restriction on Short Term Vacation Rentals for properties bought after the newly amended covenants recorded. This allows current owners flexibility, but limits future purchases from becoming STVRs which seems to be the fear of most owners. The language could be adjusted to be more lenient (properties owned by a family are able to STVR but not corporations/businesses) or restrictive (no properties allowed after recording).
These are just a few ideas, but it seems the amendments are possible without becoming a POA/HOA.
Thanks again Wes,
All the best,
Joshua