At 7 months pregnant, despite being very sick, I was still trying to get our home ready. I contacted contractors to get estimates for a fence and patio; I was hoping that they could complete it before our little one arrived. After selecting a contractor I trusted, I glanced quickly through the architectural guidelines and filled out my application but stopped when I reread the fence requirements.
Townhouses are required to have 6ft white vinyl privacy fences. Single family homes must have open style fencing that is, at most, 4ft tall.
I wondered if it was a typo because there were other single family homes with fences that were not in line with those requirements. To me, a four foot fence seemed out of place against the size of the houses in the neighborhood. I emailed the community manager, Atash, who was quick to confirm what I had read.
Instead of worry about it, I submitted for the patio and decided I would come back to the fence another time.
The baby was closing in on a year old and I was back at work full time. He wasn't walking yet but he was crawling up to the sliding glass door and pointing toward the back yard. All he wanted to do was play outside and we were reminded that a fence would be a really great addition to our home.
I contacted fence contractors again, this time asking if they had ideas for a compromise that I could offer in our application. Some contractors went so far as to measure the other fences in the neighborhood so that we could request identical specifications. With this information in mind, we applied to install a 5 foot tall privacy fence with 1 foot open topper.
Stephanie from the management company reached out to us via email a few weeks after our submission and said that the fence was outside of the guidelines and asked that we alter our application. She did not make it clear if this was just her observation or if this was direction from an actual review of our application.
We explained to her in follow up emails, and phone calls, why our requested fence fell in line with the already established aesthetics of the community and how it didn't negatively impact other residents. We submitted an additional email to her saying as much, to be included in the consideration of our fence application.
This would be the start of months of back and forth between us and the management company. Despite being a paid entity, their response times were not timely at all.
Our requests and follow ups went unanswered or barely answered for months by Stephanie, Mick, and anyone at the management company.
Having still heard nothing, we followed up again, this time CC'ing the HOA board. The inaction of the management company was appalling and we believed that our neighbors on the board would be equally disturbed.
We did not think we were asking for anything unreasonable:
- 'Can we please get an appeal hearing for our application?'
- Of the documentation we submitted, we wanted to know what was actually sent for review
- We had already confirmed that Mick did not forward all of the information
- 'Can we have more details about why our application was being denied when other neighbors were permitted to install exactly what we were asking for'
- Of the documentation we submitted, we wanted to know what was actually sent for review
- 'How do we submit a request to change the guidelines?'
Landscapers continuously cut through our yard. In doing so, one day they cut out a chunk of the perimeter wire along our lot that we use for our lawnmower. This caused our lawnmower to stop working.
We emailed the management company and HOA immediately. Neither responded.
We had to fix the wire on our own, at our own expense. In spite of this, the landscapers continued to use our yard as a cut through and were never held accountable. It was especially frustrating for this to happen while we were trying to get a fence approved and made it feel like our request was even more urgent.
When our perimeter wire was destroyed by the landscapers, we did not hear back from the management company nor the HOA. They ignored us. We had enough time to manually care for our lawn multiple times, and finally fix the wire, just in time for a violation letter stating our grass was too long.
This was upsetting for multiple reasons.
- An extreme lack of empathy
- The management company was very aware that the lawnmower that cut our grass had been broken by the community landscapers
- The picture to 'prove' the grass violation was dated from a month before
- The picture also happened to be the same day that we later fixed the lawnmower perimeter wire
- The actual violation letter was dated for two weeks after the picture was taken
- The postmark was even later than that
- The lawnmower had already been fixed and the grass was already being kept at a standard 3" height
No one could be bothered to answer our emails about the damage to our property but they could be bothered to do something that felt very retaliatory.
Since the topic of fences kept coming up when the community gathered, I asked the board at a meeting what were the actual steps to get a change to the architectural guidelines reviewed. Vinny responded that the board would start outlining that process. The board seemed pretty strong willed that 'rules are the rules' ... but only when it came to fences. The board was already approving patios and decks that were up to 20 feet, despite the guidelines strictly stating a limit of 12 feet. The double standard was confusing.
Our application was still up in the air. We were on our third manager/new face from the management company. Unlike the past managers, Eric did respond, though he lacked the basic skills of tact, spelling, grammar, and professionalism. His messages bordered on rude.
Since the board had been CC'd on all of the emails to the management company since June, we wondered why wouldn't they advocate that the management company at least respond, let alone that the responses be professional.
After everything that we had been through with our application, Eric suggested that we submit for an appeal, as if it is a new idea. Again we had to be diligent about following up because the management company was not timely. Finally, we got an appeal call scheduled for November.
Our lot is marked by stakes in an effort to give a visual cue of our space. Our lawnmower perimeter wire isn't the easiest to see and it has already been damaged by the mowers that landscapers use. Admittedly, it is easier for the landscapers to mow the grass of the common area by cutting into our yard but this poses a problem for us and our lawnmower.
It is a constant struggle to keep the stakes up - they rot out over time, the landscapers mow them down, or sometimes the landscapers pull them out entirely.
When the builder was in charge of the common areas, they replaced the markers every time their landscapers altered them. Now that the management company and the HOA was in charge of the landscapers for that area, we weren't sure who to reach out to.
We wrote an email to the management company, the HOA, and the builder. Eric was quick to respond that he would ask the builder in a separate thread if they were at fault. (spoiler alert: they weren't) The builder responded to everyone that they did not remove the markers and they reiterated that they replaced them when their people damaged them.
Eric snarkily responded to us that the lot markers were meant to be temporary anyway. This was highly insulting. We'd spent the last 10 months in a never ending black-box email chain trying to replace the 'temporary' lot markers with a permanent fence.
An appeal call was finally arranged for what was supposed to be a conversation. In attendance were Vinny, Shalini, Ryan, and Rich from the board, Mick and Eric from the management company, and my husband and I.
Only a few minutes in, it was clear there was no discussion to be had.
Our views of the HOA board members:
- downplayed our safety concerns with the surrounding water garden drains in the common spaces around our lot in the context of our toddler
- Direct quote from Shalini "What does one foot really matter?"
- Well, if that foot doesn't matter to you, it makes a difference to us. At 2 years old our toddler was 37" tall and climbing a 4 foot fence isn't outside the realm of possibility. Another foot would make a large difference.
- Ryan stated that we needed to "read between the lines" of the guidelines and recognize that fences were for solely for aesthetics
- despite the actual definition from Merriam Webster: a barrier intended to prevent escape or intrusion or to mark a boundary especially such a barrier made of posts and wire or boards
- and even if fences were just for decoration, we weren't about to spend thousands of dollars to put up a fence that we didn't like
- showed little to no concern for the property damage that was continuously occurring to our lot
- stated that any current exceptions for fences had been approved by 'other people' and not the actual board members on the call
- Does it make a difference who approved the exceptions? Or just that the exceptions had been made?
- this ignores decks and patios that were larger than 12 feet, and perimeter trees that were taller than 3 feet, that were being approved
- it should be noted that installing a fire pit within 12 feet of a home is outside of Howard County fire code so anyone with a fire pit is either out of compliance for fire code or out of alignment with the architectural guidelines.
- Rich referred to neighbors who were approved for improvements outside of the guidelines as 'rule breakers'
- It did not feel like they came to have an open discussion
Since it was clear that the conversation was not going to be productive, Vinny suggested that it was up to an ARC to make the decision. At the time, the ARC did not exist but part of the take away from the call was that one would be functional in a week. The ARC would be tasked with reviewing our appeal. The ARC would also be tasked with reaching out to the community for an updated opinion about fences since 'changing any of the architectural guidelines at this point was unfair'.
Given the management company's mismanagement of our case, we asked that we be CC'd on the correspondence to the ARC to ensure that all of the correct context and documentation was included. Everyone agreed on the call and it was Mick's responsibility to make sure it happened.
I had expected the management company to send recap meeting notes as part of their duties but they did not. I sent my own email capturing the action items from both sides. Because I did not have confidence that the management company or the board would uphold their promises, it was important to me to have the action items written down.
Two weeks had passed and we hadn't heard anything. We understood that board and the ARC may have had things come up but we expected Mick or Eric, people we pay to manage our community, to give some sort of status.
No response.
We waited another 10 days before sending another follow up email. Given the pattern from the previous months of ignored emails from the management company, we were understandably frustrated.
Mick and Eric continued to be silent but this time Rich, from the board, responded.
With Rich's response we finally had some information which was more than we had been afforded so far.
We waited to see an email from Mick who was supposed to be sending our application and appeal information to the ARC. Since all parties agreed on the call that we would be included in the communication about our appeal with the ARC, we found it strange that we were still getting silence.
Rich informed us that the board had already given our appeal over to the ARC and had no intention of keeping us in the loop. We could not be assured which documents were included, which was one of the fears we called out in the appeal call. It was another frustrating moment knowing that nothing that was discussed on the call was being followed.
We tried to regroup with the new information from Rich and salvage at least some of the action items from the November call.
Rich interpreted the November action items and our email in his own way and was bulldozing ahead.
One item on our punch list was to ask the ARC to review fence guidelines, specifically, and determine if it was appropriate to allow the precedent set by the current fence exceptions to stand for everyone.
While an amendment process for changing any of the guidelines would be a step in the right direction, it wasn't something that we were asking for a status on.
Rich decided that we needed to supply him with full documentation of all applications we've ever submitted, not just the one that we're currently appealing. This is very much out of the scope of the appeal request and previous discussions. We pointed him to the management company, who should have all the appropriate documentation, and attempted to bring the thread back on topic.
We were fairly confused that no one else on the thread stepped in to correct the situation. They had to have seen how off base Rich was but no one said anything and the thread continued.
There are a few things to note with this email. The management company is paid by our community as someone we can rely on for administrative overhead. We were very aware that everyone else works on a volunteer basis. While Rich is correct that we were frustrated with the performance of the management company, our suggestion was never to bypass them, we should be pushing them to manage - as we are paying them to do.
We tried to again clarify what we meant by 'full context' for the ARC. Full context was important because the management company had not provided all of the documents that we supplied in the past and it took us months of emails to Mick to determine that was the case.
We explained why previous applications should have no bearing on our current application. Rich's new found interest in our previous requests was strange and was never part of the appeal conversation.
Lastly we tried, again, to bring the thread back on topic.
Rich's response seemed power hungry and childish. Again, we were confused that no one else on the thread stepped in, everyone was content to let him go off on a tangent. From our side, it was strange to see an adult throw an actual temper tantrum via email.
At this point, we'd dealt with a year of headaches and we just wanted people to do what they said they would. Again, the attempt was made to bring the thread back on topic. Again, we tried (in vain) to just get some transparency into our application.
Strange. Our application was complete when it was submitted, it was complete when we had the appeals call, it was complete and ready to review up until a random December Saturday that Rich decided it wasn't.
Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
At this point we contacted a lawyer. There was no being reasonable with someone who could not listen. It was also very scary to think that there was no accountability for anyone involved.
But Rich was not done, it was the holiday season and he still had more to give.
Instead of answering any of the questions that we started the email thread for, he doubled down on his power hungry request claiming support from Vinny and Shalini. He came up with a new list of requirements for our application and left it ambiguous as to whether or not our application had actually been sent to the ARC or if it would ever be reviewed without meeting these new requirements.
Were other families being asked for the same types of documentation? Why was our family being singled out and treated this way?
We watched more single family houses with fences 'outside of the guidelines' go up. It made no sense.
Our lawyer stated how atypical it was for a board to behave the way that ours had. She suggested that since it had been a month of radio silence about our appeal, we should start fresh and submit a new application.
She worked with us to make sure that we provided all of the appropriate information. As a good faith gesture we even collected the additional information that Rich felt entitled to. We captured the headache of our previous nightmare application and pleaded that the board be reasonable this time in a cover letter accompanying our new application for a 5 foot spaced-picket fence.
Though our lawyer had gotten confirmation that our application was received, again our application was a black box.
As an aside, we never heard back about the previous application, we have no idea if the ARC ever saw it, we received no word that it had been denied or otherwise.
Our lawyer had been reaching out to get a status on the application. As the 60 day limit drew near, Amber from the management company suddenly decided that she could no longer relay information to our lawyer because our lawyer was not the homeowner. When I followed up with Amber to ask the status, she had no idea what application I was talking about.
A few days later I got a call from our new community manager Natis; Mick and Eric were apparently no longer our managers. Natis told me that although the 60 day limit for application review ended on March 15, it was implied that the involvement of lawyers meant the response would take longer. When I asked for this in writing, she declined.
She went further to say that the management team and board were busy measuring fences in yards so that we could come to a compromise. She had no knowledge of our previous application, which was supposed to have gone to the ARC in December, and said she would investigate and get back to me - something that she did not do.
March 17, two days past the 60 day review window, our lawyer received a generic denial email from the board's lawyer stating that the fence we applied for in our application did not meet the requirements listed in the guidelines. Again, it did not address ANY of the additional reasons we listed. It also incorrectly listed our request as a 5 foot privacy fence.
When our lawyer pointed out the mistake, we were told that Natis told the board's lawyers that I had called her (I hadn't, she had called me) and said I had asked her to change the fence specifications (something I also had not done). I provided my phone records in case there was any dispute.
We were told that it 'didn't make a difference if the denial was for a 5 foot privacy fence or a 5 foot spaced-picket fence, both would have been denied'. So it seemed that this board was going to deny anything that we submitted.
If they were going to deny the application no matter what, why did they wait so long to respond?
If they knew there was a 60 day window, why wait two days past that deadline to send a generic response?
If they were out gathering information from the neighborhood to push forth a compromise, why was there no conversation?
The lack of consideration was awful. These people were supposed to be or neighbors but there was nothing neighborly about the nightmare they were putting us through.
Homeowners with fences that were 'out of regulation' were sent letters for their 'transgression'. The management company didn't have the documentation so it was assumed that the homeowners were in violation. Many, if not all, of the homeowners had gotten appropriate approval for their fences.
This came to a head at an HOA meeting. Homeowners were rightfully upset, especially given that the issue was missing documentation; something that was not the fault of the homeowners.
It seemed like it was more important to the people sending the letters that the 'rule breakers' be brought to justice. They didn't bother with "a neighborly approach" as one would hope for in a community. It's easy to hire a business to be jerks to people they don't know, or care about, but I didn't think that was the purpose of an HOA. I thought the important element of an HOA was the neighbor aspect; being able to treat each other with respect since we're a community. It felt like that element was totally lost.
I think we can all agree that the builder didn't create the architectural guidelines especially for us. They had a template that they used everywhere and that was what we started with. One can infer that they didn't even care too much about those rules since they were fine with allowing exceptions. Our guiding light on how we update our guidelines should be based on whether or not something negatively affects property value, otherwise, we should leave people alone.
No one wants to get every element of the decisions for their home nitpicked, especially when they're not asking for anything ridiculous. Unless we want our community to be one of the reasons that people check the "no HOA" box in their home search, we should consider our actions.
One community member said it best - "Live and let live".
There are reasons for rules, but rules are not the reason. Rules should be adaptable to what make sense for us as a community.
Also during the meeting, we asked the board what the process was for replacing the management company; they had shown a lack of ability to respond in a timely manner and had even responded unprofessionally on occasion. Not just to myself and my family, other community members had expressed similar concerns. Despite this, the board members acted surprised at the request.
Vinny's response was that 'the board would decide if the management company needed to be replaced but they were very happy with them and weren't considering it at the time'.
Our lawyer agreed that the appeal meeting was just for show, there was nothing that led us to believe that there was a willingness for a conversation. If they were willing to go out of their way to send violation letters to people who were not in violation, our fence had no chance.
The call went the same way as the call from 6 months ago and our inevitable denial response was given. Our lawyer kept stressing how atypical the board's behavior throughout the process was. The only thing she could suggest was getting the community involved. As long as three people were pushing their way forward and we were the only ones pushing back, the outcome would always be the same.
The board did promise to outline a way to update the architectural guidelines. The ARC delivered.
The board took the opportunity to update the guidelines to allow for larger porches, decks, and screened in porches, closing a multi-year discrepancy in the architectural approvals. Rich made sure to let the community know that changing the guidelines cost the community money and suggested that we should try to minimize the number of changes or group changes together when possible.
Given the concern about the cost for changes to the guidelines, it might have been in the community's best interest to also look at fence guidelines at the time, no? Especially since the exterior alterations listed in the resolution were already being approved.
I reached out to the community via the 'unofficial' Facebook page, trying to explain my terrible experience and compelling the community to vote this board out. I believed that our board should be comprised of individuals who are advocates for the community as a whole and they should be accountable for their actions. It didn't get much traction. I was a random community member and the board members were well known - 2/3 of which were 'moderators' for said Facebook page.
I tried to bring up the double standards at HOA meetings but the board was quick to talk around them. The board had a platform and they could control the narrative however they felt, and they did.
I decided that the only way to see change, was to run for a seat and try to make things better myself. I knew I wasn't well known and I was trying to find a way to stand out. Making a useful website would be the perfect way to show the community that even if they didn't know who I was, I could contribute something of value vs making empty promises. Moreover, in a recent meeting, the topic of a community website had come up but Vinny had squashed it stating that websites cost 'thousands of dollars'.
Let me start by saying that I lost.
and I was (and still am) subject to A LOT of bullying along the way.
The website is great but there were a lot of factors that collided when we first presented it to everyone.
- My husband and I made a professional looking website, providing something that the HOA had not
- I promoted my nomination for the board seat on our website
- We also used our site to give a platform to start conversations about the nasty behaviors we were seeing from the HOA
Some people made quick, incorrect, mostly uninformed, assumptions and the social media reaction, in typical social media form, looked something like this...
With every new perceived concern, we made changes to the site to try to calm the hysteria but it quickly became clear that no amount of changes would matter. It was also clear that the Facebook 'moderators' weren't going to (and didn't) say anything to help the situation.
At the first attempt at quorum for the election, candidates agreed to an open Q&A which instead turned into a verbal attack on me for creating the website. I knew that no one "moderating" would step in, or it would be a first if they did, but it was still disappointing. Board members and some candidates attempting to stand on platforms of togetherness and community did not execute actions to back their words.
While I knew I was walking into an ambush that night, I also knew people were upset and I thought it was important to meet people where they were. I sat back for the snarky comments (during both committee presentations and during the Q&A) and tried to listen from an open place no matter how the questions were fired at me. I tried to answer calmly to show that I wasn't looking for a fight, even if other people were.
There was still some swirl afterward on social media but then it went very silent. There were some attempts to continue to demonize us and make us look like an enemy. We knew we hadn't done anything wrong nor were we trying to be malicious but our voice would never be heard above the many that had already categorized us.
On October 30th at 3:30pm someone created a static website with a domain bearing my name. The site itself was just a picture of dirty laundry with part of the disclaimer from our site. In the source code they put a link to our public property information - in case we were unsure if the person was directing the 'attack' at me or not. They then set up multiple google ads to surface the website with a byline "Enjoy the domain! There's plenty to choose from!". I believe the person was trying to get a reaction over the fact that they had bought a domain with my name, but more than anything, they were showing the caliber of person that they were, and the type of community they wanted to work toward.
I emailed the management company and the HOA. I wanted them to know the type of environment and community that they were fostering. I also wanted to give them the chance to rectify it.
As we had become accustomed to, no one responded.
We don't check our mail often, most of our important information comes to us electronically. When we finally did check our mailbox we found two copies of a cease and desist letter from the lawyer that represents our HOA. The letters were dated October 30th.
October 30th was a busy day apparently
The board never reached out to us for a conversation.
Was this really the most effective way to act in the best interest of the community? Or was this actually about strong egos, hurt feelings, and sour grapes? I wonder how much of our community funds were spent on a baseless cease and desist. Maybe this HOA would benefit from "a neighborly approach" instead of aggressively demanding people bend to their whim.
Fortunately, we have not done anything wrong.
There is nothing for us to cease or desist.
A few members of the community did reach out to us directly. They too had opinions on various topics that differed from the 'loud voices in the room FB group' but were concerned about the backlash they would receive communicating it - especially after seeing what happened to our family.
This is a problem that needs to be addressed so we're going to continue to advocate for fairness and transparency. The group that runs the HOA wants nothing to do with us or our site, that's fine, but we're still part of this community and our voice still matters just as much as any other community member.
Nevertheless, She Persisted