I have just read through the last post on the voting for the POA. I understand the reasons presented and agree that many of the points are valid. I too am very leery of giving that type of power to a board which can levy fines and liens against covenants that are not followed to begin with. However, the underlying message of the post is to allow the short term rentals, which I am dead set against.
I lived on Tybee for 12 years in a very nice/quite and family oriented area. It slowly changed to STVR as the older folks and their kids moved on. It changed the whole dynamics of the neighborhood, which was very disappointing.
Now that Tybee has restricted STVR’s all investors are looking for the next best place, which is Talahi Lake. I have a friend that lives on the other side of 80 that has multiple STVR’s in their neighborhood. I am constantly receiving cards in my mailbox asking if I want to sell my house. Not sure if it is investors, but this area is not the best kept secret anymore.
That said, is there any way to restrict just STVR’s or limit the minimum rental length to a month or so without having a POA or HOA.
That is a question I had too, Denslay. The answer is that a POA or HOA allows it to pass with a 2/3rd majority, while voting without a POA or HOA requires 100% vote. This is what has happened across Hwy 80 to our sister community.
Also, the lake association has always been able to place a lien for non payment of dues. The home we purchased in 2015 had a lien for over $3000 due to the homeowner never paying dues. Our house was built in 1978. That was a huge surprise to us the day before closing. Luckily, it was settled before we closed on our home!
Renee
Hi Renee!
The restrictive covenants seem like they state that the owners can vote to change covenants, in whole or in part, with a majority of the owners of the lots. The below is taken from the restrictive covenants from 1990.
…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.
Am I reading this correctly?
In regard to liens, you are totally right about he board being able to place liens for the yearly $225 dues. That’s quite a few years the previous owner of your home hadn’t paid dues!
What is a little intimidating about the proposed POA changes is that the board can now levy fines. Lets say the board decides to crack down on all of the storage shed’s built around the lake, I know there’s one on my lot. Based on the proposal, the board can make up a fine and a schedule to fine, with no cap or limit to the schedule. $100 a month for each owner with a shed adds up really quickly. Also, since any shed owner would now owe money due to breaking the covenants, their ability to use the lake (common property use automatically suspended until balance paid in full, even if disputed) is now restricted.
A recent message sent out said 41 of the 62 Talahi Estates properties had broken covenants… this could get out of control really quickly and may really degrade the enjoyment of the lake and cause a lot of wasted money in legal fees.
Is anything I’m saying incorrect? Thanks for taking the time to help me understand this better.
Edit: please disregard the “storage sheds,” I misspoke. Insert any of the covenants that are not enforced regularly.
In addition, liens involve a multi step legal process. I don’t know the number of liens filed in the 55 year history of the lake. but I know it to be small.
We currently have a very fuzzy mechanism for enforcement. I agree there are issues to resolve about what is to be enforced, but now we have challenges in restricting things like gasoline engines and other obviously undesirable acts. This gives clear authority for enforcement like that.
Shortly, I will post an agenda for next Wednesday.
What I do know is any further rules or restrictions must result from a 2/3 majority vote of the membership.
This board has been made up of your neighbors for the last 50 years. The only radical change we seek is about short term rental. A survey was just posted by two non board members to determine the position of the members on the short term rental question. It is not a vote, it is a way to determine the will of the body as we continue to wrestle with this issue. I appreciate Dan and Wes’s initiative to help us know where we stand on the crux of the matter.
Bill Oakley