Even if the restrictions are changed, anything that was done by a homeowner that conformed to the original restrictions before the restrictions are changed are "grandfathered". That is, they can remain. If the property is sold, then things might get "sticky". Depending on the original agreement one signed, anything that has been "grandfathered" may, or may not, be allowed to remain. That is when the lawyers get involved!
Glen, I don't doubt what you say is true in some jurisdictions, maybe even in most places, but our HOA attorney insists that any changes legally made ( i.e., through due process, in compliance with our articles, bylaws, and North Carolina statutes, by 2/3 majority vote of the homeowners, and properly recorded ) do apply to everyone in the development. The "reason" they say it would apply to everyone here is that by virtue of buying property here, everyone has therefore already agreed to be subjected to the HOA articles, bylaws, and covenants, and associated "process" ... meaning 2/3 majority rule.
Originally Posted by K9STH
Of course one can always challenge any such change by bringing a lawsuit, but that can be quite expensive, and likely to fail ( according to our property management company president and his HOA-specialist attorney, both of whom were involved in developing the North Carolina statutes that apply to HOAs ). I personally think that grandfathering is fair to the minority, but apparently that doesn't apply here. If a 2/3 majority want us to have green mailboxes that are shaped like kangaroos, then we will all have green mailboxes shaped like kangaroos.
What I care about is a adding a covenant that is ( reasonably ) permissive of antenna structures rather than entirely prohibitive. But since I am apparently the only licensed ham in a community of over 100 properties it seems quite unlikely I could obtain 2/3 majority support. More likely it would require an FCC ruling or changes to the North Carolina statutes. However, when the state legislature passed the NC Planned Community Act, they made it so that only some provisions applied to "older" communities like mine, while all provisions apply to newer communities; so even if they changed the "law" it might not apply to my community. It might, but it might not. Life is too complicated, so for now I will stick with my multi-band rotatable dipole in the attic.
73, Peter N4UP
A gentleman is a man who can play the accordion but doesn't.
Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together. ~Carl Zwanzig
CC&Rs are something the American people let happen, slowly over several decades...I blame everybody including myself and past generations.
But whoever thinks that all new housing must have such covenants is incorrect. I checked here over the past several weeks and there are brand new houses being built right now that don't have any, nor are they part of any HOA. They're just not "tract" homes, they're built one by one. Slightly more expensive than in a tract, but frankly, not by much. It's still a matter of "cost per square foot" and if the going rate is $250 per square foot as it is in this area, that's pretty much what things cost. If it's all marble and gilded, maybe more; if it's all ramshackle and horrendous, maybe less. But the market determines what stuff's worth.
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-- George Bernard Shaw
I should have read further, before responding.
Last edited by W3RXO; 06-04-2012 at 01:34 AM.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Very good description of what I believe would be a reasonable accomodation
Originally Posted by WB2WIK
I should have read further, before responding, with the previous post. Steve said it perfectly.