Weatherstone Estates HOA Meeting August 20, 2014
Board Members Present: Rob Baker, Steve Wagenfeld, Steve Markman, Susan Lemlie-Gillespie and Tricia Dowler
Nina Spitler was unable to attend. 24 Residents total attended, including the board.
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Rob.
Rob addressed the purpose of the evening’s meeting was a result of the earlier meeting in May. The Board had withdrawn their submission of new Covenants, Codes and Restrictions and those present were there to vote to keep the current CC & R’s in place.
Michael Copfer and his associate from Inverness homes were introduced. Michael spoke to their vested interest in phase II of Weatherstone Estates. It is their intent to build homes that will sustain and/or increase the value of the existing community.
Input was then asked for from the neighbors who were in attendance in regards to the matter of the discussion at hand: the CC & R’s.
Erica P. shared that when the subcommittee that was created to review her proposal of new CC & R’s sat down, it was discussed that the restrictions currently in place allow flexibility when a resident seeks to alter his/her property. It may be necessary though to elaborate or share with residents the process of acquiring a variance. The subcommittee had read and discussed the concerns shared via the unofficial email vote.
Elaine P. expressed a concern that when the rules of the Township do not address a particular restriction, then HOA rules take precedence.
Steve W. spoke/replied to the desire that a Weatherstone Resident that wishes to alter or vary something in regards to his/her own home is at liberty to apply for a variance from the Board if such may result in a conflict with the CC & R’s. The HOA has and does grant variances.
Elaine was concerned that some of the current CC & R’s may be an invasion of personal privacy. The question was then posed if some of the CC & R’s could be written to make them “clearer.” The concern being that in the future, the board members may change and so may the interpretation of the Restrictions as well as the enforcement there of. Steve W. spoke to the fact that any language may be “interpreted” differently by any given group or individual.
Ted M. stated to the homeowner’s in attendance that upon purchase of your home, you agreed to the current CC & R’s that govern the neighborhood.
Steve W. shared that the current board members in place are those who initially volunteered to assume the responsibilities when neighborhood took over the HOA.
Elaine shared a second concern regarding allowing someone else to live in your home. She is concerned with the way the document is written that it does not allow for extended family to reside in your home/finished basement area. She is willing to email the board with the particular covenants which concern her.
Discussion then moved to the legal update regarding the ability to make changes to the CC & R’s. The 2005 Articles of Incorporation for Weatherstone Estates speak to a 75% requirement of those voting to cause a change. The Restrictions document speaks to the majority of those voting to make a change. As a result of the two documents being in conflict, a lawyer for the HOA was contacted, and he believes that the Ohio state law would then take precedent and that it indeed takes 75% of those present and/or by proxy to affect a change in the CC & R’s for Weatherstone Estates. There would also be no minimum quorum involved.
Erica inquired if it was possible at this meeting to vote to make changes to specific items on the current CC & R’s.
Steve W. replied to the fact that nothing was submitted to the board prior to the meeting of which the entire community was informed, and therefore was not on the agenda. As a result, the only vote that those present could take was what was stated on the agenda: a yea or no to keep the current CC & R’s. A request to the board prior to any meeting is required to be included on the agenda, so that those in the community may make a decision to attend and/or vote. It was stated that developers/the State have voting percentage requirements in place to prevent an abundance and/or ease when changing Covenants and Restrictions. Michael Copfer shared that Inverness requires 75% of ALL residents, not just those in attendance or via proxy, to be in agreement before any of Phase II covenants may be altered or changed. A resident then politely commented that if it is a good change, most everyone would agree.
Ted M. asked if an email had been sent out to notify Weatherstone residents of the vote. There had not been, only the letter in each mailbox. He requested that in the future, for extra assurance, email be done as well. The email list for all residents is believed to be incomplete only by 3.
Barb G. posed a question to Michael Copfer of Inverness if the HOA from Phase I and II would merge. Mr. Copfer replied that they will remain separate until building is complete and Inverness turns it over to those residents. At that time, they may, by a 75% vote of all existing homes, vote to merge or remain a separate entity.
Todd P. spoke in regards to the letter he received regarding shutters down on his home. He was offended and would have desired a more personal approach as we are all neighbors. The letters seemed to have the implied assumption that people did not care to take care of their home. Steve W. offered that we did not feel knocking on someone’s door was appropriate. Mike Copfer of Inverness commented that when the HOA sends a letter, it helps to create a paper trail. Tricia D. stated, that although we are neighbors, the HOA still needs to function as a business.
Erica suggested that in the future there could be a letter of concern sent out initially, and if there is no response, then follow by a more pointed request.
Rob said he will personally make copies of our CC & R’s and hand deliver to all residents.
Tricia D. spoke to the fact that as a result of a past meeting, a Welcome letter was created for new residents to welcome and inform them.
Barb G. shared a concern regarding the mailboxes. Several residents have had their mailbox break and need a replacement or replacement parts. The company which manufactured our mailboxes has a sticker just inside the door of the mailbox should the need arise to contact them for replacement. Barb informed those present that the model or style that we all currently have is no longer manufactured and a different mailbox would violate the CC & R’s. Steve W. reiterated, that when in doubt, please contact the board.
Rob then called for a vote on the current CC & R’s. 20 of the Homes present and 7 Homes voted via proxy to keep the current CC & R’s in place. As a result, the current CC & R’s will remain in place with a vote exceeding 75 % in favor of the retaining the current CC & R’s.
Ted M. inquired after the submissions that residents had made regarding changes, if those could be addressed in the future as he kept a copy of his ideas. He was told that the board is aware of his suggestions, and he may discuss them in the future.
Erica and Elaine P. requested to be part of the board.
Steve W. replied that their request would be taken into consideration and they would be contacted in the near future. The board would need to make a legal inquiry as to how many persons should serve and for what length of time.
There was a final request to be able to share minutes to the meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.