Parking + Guest Material Changes in the VOB CC&R - 

We urgently appeal for injunctive relief to address pressing community matters, aiming to prevent escalation and disruptions, and propose a temporary hold on new policies related to the issues until a resolution is collaboratively reached. This relief allows time for a comprehensive examination of facts and legal findings, fostering a solution that ensures community well-being.

The following petition serves as a demand for assistance in response to unreasonable HOA measures that should be enacted as an amendment under the bylaws. These signatures within the Village of Belmont community serve as concerned residents that agree in adherence to the concerns and call for change herein. 

The Board should take swift action before December 22, 2023 to give the community a voice to remedy the disdain of unreasonable parking enforcement and guest measures that impact the quiet enjoyment of each owner's Lot. 

• Concern No. 1: Amendment – Material Change to Articles of Incorporation 

O.C.G.A. § 44-5-60(d)(4) otherwise known as the “Anti Restriction Law.” As an owner of property, this law states that no change in covenants which imposes a greater restriction on the use of land will be enforced unless the owner of the affected property agrees to the change in writing.

A common example of a “greater restriction on the use of land” would be providing for a vehicle restriction, identifying the types of vehicles that can be parked in the community and where they can park. Put simply, it refers to a limitation or prohibition against something that the owner previously could do. Therefore, the existence of the Anti-Restriction Law coupled with amendments must be present to be enacted in the community, as coupled with the regulations below set forth by law and the Articles of Incorporation.

This required percentage would equal two-thirds (2/3) or such larger majority as the governing documents may specify. Once that required percentage has been met, the amendment has been approved and can be executed and recorded in the respective county land records. Even though there may be owners who rejected the amendment, the amendment that imposes new restrictions would still apply to all owners. See 11.7 Amendment in Articles of Incorporation. 
 

• Concern No. 2: Lack of Regular Meetings – Open Meeting Concept 

Many community members have expressed concern about the lack of transparency and special meetings to resolve this issue without much interest and accommodation by the Board. Here, we would like to call out the concern in the Bylaws of Village of Belmont Homeowners Association, Inc. 3.9. Regular Meetings stating that at least four (4) meetings shall be had during each fiscal year with at least (1) per quarter. Notice of the regular schedule shall constitute sufficient notice of such meetings. Again in 3.14. Open Meetings, all meetings of the Board shall be open to all members. 

The community is concerned of the lack of transparency when it comes to Open Meetings and whether the four (4) Regular Meetings quarterly are happening, as notice of the Regular Meetings have yet to be made public to members of the community. If discussion of the parking amendment were discussed in Q3 or Q4 meetings, there would be notification and concern raised after the meeting in accordance to Board discussions. Here, there is a lack of transparency, and if Board meetings are happening – the community would like to have the availability to the Open Meeting reservation made in section 3.14 of the Bylaws. 

• Concern No. 3: Fair Housing Act Violation 

Community members are concerned with familial status discrimination in accordance to the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA), which forbids familial status, national origin or disability. 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (a). 

The highly restrictive parking regulations, particularly the monthly guest hour allocation, disproportionately affect families with consistent child caregivers. In the event of an emergency, a child caregiver must have easily accessible transportation to the owner's home, and these unwarranted parking restrictions and guest violations hinder Lot owners with familial status who rely on childcare as a routine service.

Additional concerns revolve around visitors with family status, particularly elderly family members and safety concerns with parking far away from Lots on a regular basis. The challenge arises when they face difficulties parking outside the community and subsequently visiting Lot Owners. This not only poses health and safety concerns but also raises questions about potential discriminatory concerns for visitors and their affected family members. Such undue restrictions significantly impede the quiet enjoyment of Lot Owners in their home ownership.

• Concern No. 4: Reasonable Standard – Not So Reasonable

 
According to 7.4 (Vehicles; Parking), “[A]ll parking shall be further subject to such reasonable rules and regulations as the Board may adopt from time to time.” 

The general standard is that a reasonable covenant that promotes a substantial interest of the community will probably be upheld. Saunders v. Thorn Woode Partnership, L.P. 265 Ga. 703, 462 S.E.2d 135 (1995). We believe along with other national authorities that this restriction is not binding on homeowners because it burdens Lot owners on the use of lands and substantially outweighs the restriction's benefits to the development's residents and violates fundamental public policy. 

Proposed Solution(s)

• Special Meeting Initiated by the Board:
  Convene a special meeting led by the Board to explore various resolution options for parking issues that do not unduly restrict the enjoyment and usage of members' homes and Lots.
• Compile the top discussed options and have the Board Secretary prepare a written ballot. This ballot will then be distributed to all Association Members, as outlined in the HOA Articles.
• Allow Lot Owners to actively participate in the decision-making process by casting their votes and contributing to the final representation of parking resolutions.
   
  The community is receptive to open dialogue and welcomes alternative solutions outlined in this proposal. We believe that fostering a collaborative approach will lead to a resolution that aligns with the needs and preferences of all community members.