AMBERLEIGH SURVEY RESULTS-GOVERNING DOCUMENTS

AMBERLEIGH SURVEY RESULTS-GOVERNING DOCUMENTS

AMBERLEIGH SURVEY RESULTS-GOVERNING DOCUMENTS

 

 

 

AMBERLEIGH SURVEY RESULTS-GOVERNING DOCUMENTS

20.7% OF AMBERLEIGH HOUSEHOLDS RESPONDED TO THE SURVEY!

The Amberleigh  Homeowners Association, Inc. was formed 29 years ago.  State Statutes enacted by the Virginia General Assembly over the last 29 years have effectively changed Amberleigh’s original documents which has resulted in the HOA no longer having the ability to either carry out the original expectations of the HOA, nor take measures to address the requests of owners or protect the Association.

Accordingly, in contemplation of amending the original documents to restore the Association’s authorities to that which was originally intended, the Board sought the advice of Owners via an uncomplicated survey as a starting point

The responses often show that Owners were confused by the questions at times because they believed that the Association already has such authority. Accordingly, it appears to them that the Association is seeking additional authority – which is not the case. The Association desires to restore the HOA’s original authority and/or include specific language in the Governing Documents that is now required by State Statute.

The survey consisted of 6 questions that responded to issues the Board currently faces.  The 6 questions were:

  1. I support the Association having the ability to apply late fees to owners who do not pay their quarterly assessments on time.
  2. I support the Association having the ability to impose parking rules, which may include restricting the # of vehicles, parking assignments, parking registration.
  3. I support the Association having the ability to fine owners who do not comply with the rules of the Association concerning maintenance of homes, parking, trash.
  4. I support the Association having the ability to address issues that we may not currently foresee but may occur in the future and impacts the HOA, such as AirBnB.
  5. Do you support:
  6. a. Changing the current documents to prohibit those who do not own a home in

Amberleigh from running and hold a seat on the HOA’s Board of Directors.

  1. Prohibiting more than one person per household from being on the Board of

Directors at the same time.

  1. I support lowering the 75% of all titled owner required to make future amendments to the

Governing Documents.

 

Page 1 of 13

 

NOTES:

    A total of 101 surveys were received or 20.7% of Amberleigh’s households.

    Some did not respond to each question on the survey.

    A list of all comments received is provided at the end of this summary

 

QUESTION ONE:  I support the Association having the ability to apply late fees to owners who do not pay their quarterly assessments on time.

YES:  82.2%.     NO: 17.8%.

QUESTION TWO: I support the Association having the ability to impose parking rules, which may include restricting the # of vehicles, parking assignments, parking

registration.

YES: 59.4%.     NO: 40.6%.

  1. II.

QUESTION THREEI support the Association having the ability to fine owners who do not comply with the rules of the Association concerning maintenance of homes,

parking, trash.

YES: 72.3%.     NO: 24.7%.

QUESTION FOUR: I support the Association having the ability to address issues that we may not currently foresee but may occur in the future and impacts the HOA, such as

AirBnB.

YES: 71.28%.     NO: 25.7%.

QUESTION FIVE A: (a two-part question) Do you support:

(a) Changing the current documents to prohibit those who do not own a home in

Amberleigh from running and hold a seat on the HOA’s Board of Directors.

YES: 75.2%.     NO: 20.8%.

Page 2 of 13

QUESTION FIVE, PART B:

(b) Prohibiting more than one person per household from being on the Board of Directors at the same time.

YES: 82.1%.     NO: 17.8%.

QUESTION SIX:  I support lowering the 75% of all titled owner required to make future amendments to the Governing Documents.

YES: 59.4%.     NO: 37.6%.

COMMENTS

  1. 1. Assessments. I support the Association having the ability to apply late fees to owners who do not pay their quarterly assessments on ti     Yes 82.2%   No 17.8%

    Yes, but with discretion with the chaos caused by the pandemic! There should be some avenue

for relief for those severely impacted!

    I thought you already do. Not at this time with the pandemic.

    Only if there are multiple notices and a hearing for the board to meet with the owner(s)

involved before a fee is levied. The process needs to be clear, consistent, and fair.

      The caveat is that I think the board should provide at least 2 certified letters providing a warning, plus a hearing to give the homeowners an opportunity to talk to the board during an Executive Session, before applying a late fee.

    So long as there is an appeals process.

      All should be held accountable to the same fees. If you do not pay, an appropriate late fee makes sense.

      Yes but with discretion with the chaos caused by the pandemic! There should be some avenue for relief for those severely impacted!

      Amberleigh should have a grace period when the fees are due. If approved, the late fees should be $5.00. Example: Due Date January 1, 2021 late after January 16, 2021 please pay $305.00.

    After what length of time do we propose as a “grace period” until the late fees kick in?

      It would be interesting to know the number or percentage of owners who are regularly delinquent, and for how long. Is there a widespread problem or people not paying on time or are there owners who aren’t paying at all? Are non-payments endangering the current budget?

    Prefer owners be given a wide window to reconcile their account prior to fees being charged.

Given unstable economic environment, I am OK with waiving fees if circumstances justify.

    After considerable grace period, especially now.

      May also consider a discount for paying quarterly assessment in advance, i.e. one year at once gets a 5% discount.

Page 3 of 13

 

      I also support the Association having the ability to revoke parking privileges on community streets for owners and/or their tenants for properties with unpaid quarterly assessments after the first unpaid quarter.

    What’s the point of paying the HOA fee if there are no checks and balances? There needs to be a

penalty if no payment is made.

      However, I would expect the Board to take into consideration times such as recessions, high unemployment, pandemics, etc. to not incur burdens on homeowners who are unable to temporarily pay.

    During these times when many folks have reduced income I don’t believe they should be

penalized for not being able to pay on time.

      I proactively pay my assessment every 3 months before it’s due but I have never gotten a notice reminding me to pay. Owners need to get multiple reminders to pay before late fees are applied.

      Perhaps there could be at least a two-week grace period for each quarter. Perhaps charging after mid-month or 30 days.

    Need more information on this. The HOA can put a late fee on late payments. The HOA can

take a Lien on a home if there’s a balance. What would additional fines accomplish?

    Yes, if late payments have impacted the HOA’s ability to pay for maintenance (trash removal,

snow removal, landscaping, etc.).

    Several warnings and notices.

      I support this generally, but I urge you to reserve the right to “not” charge late fees in extenuating circumstances, such a during the current pandemic or if a homeowner is seriously ill.

    The Quarterly dues are expensive enough.

    The HOA fees shouldn’t continue to be raised if the grounds aren’t kept up.

      As we face hardships during COVID (and it is likely to be an ongoing issue in the next year), we should be more flexible.

  1. 2. Parking. I support the Association having the ability to impose parking rules, which may include restricting the # of vehicles, parking assignments, parking registration.

 Yes 59.4%  No 40.6%

    I would have to have a lot more information than this. What about parties, music lessons, etc.

      Absolutely no. this was done may years ago and was disaster. Who is going to be paid to monitor the situation?  Also, the structure/design does not work in some locations because of spaces with homes.

    Only if each unit gets a similar number of spaces.

    I think these types of disputes should be handled between neighbors.

      My area has such limited parking, considering people with 3 or 4 cars, we need designated parking and vehicle restrictions to two vehicles in the parking area.  Any others need to be on the street.

      I do not believe the Association has the manpower nor the interest in handling parking registration, assignments, or mediating conflicts. The board has had a board of about 4-6 members for most of my time at AMB. The number committee meetings and interactions with the community has decreased to the bare minimum in my opinion. The board just does not seem to be mature enough organizationally to take this on.

    The open parking is one of the most attractive features of the community.

Page 4 of 13

      We have already voted down assigned parking. Stop bringing it up! And if you try to restrict the number of vehicles, you must both grandfather current vehicles and allow for exceptions (as 1 historic vehicle per house and one vehicle per …

      I support parking rules where needed. My area on Birchleigh Cir. Does not have a parking problem and I do not support assigned parking in this area.  I recognize that there are areas of the community that DO have parking issues.

      One of the best things about the Amberleigh neighborhood is the open parking. Please do not change this.

    Only if each unit gets a similar number of spaces.

      My area has such limited parking, considering people with 3-4 cars, we need designated parking and vehicle restrictions to two vehicles in the parking area. Any others need to be on the street.

    I think these types of disputes should be handled between neighbors.

    I would have to have a lot more information than this. What about parties, music lessons, etc.

      Amberleigh should require parking stickers/tags. Each townhouse should have two cars per house unassigned parking.  Towing/fines should be enforced of owners violate the policies. The Amberleigh HOA fine should be $150.00 plus towing of vehicle(s). Violators will be towed at the owner’s expense. Amberleigh HOA should consider turning the boat lot into visitors only

parking area.  It is imperative that the Board of Directors implement parking restrictions based upon the closing remarks.

      Need flexibility for visitors/contractors in parking spaces – bigger issue is parking on the streets, especially Crestleigh, where parking on two sides is creating hazardous conditions.

    There has been times I come home and can’t park in front of my house due to neighbor’s guests.

They do sometimes move when they see me. But I would like to have assigned parking so that I

know I will have it when I come home.

      We don’t currently have parking problems (on Foxleigh). Any proposed amendment should limit the Board’s power to imposing only street-specific rules after gaining agreement of 75% of homes on that street.

      Owners should have a spot reserved close to their home for purposes of loading/unloading. I do not support restricting the number of vehicles but would ask them to be respectful to their neighbors.

      Parking may be tight in front of some homes but overall we have so much extra parking here, this seems like overkill.  It’s so ridiculous that I don’t understand why people park on Crestleigh and how no one has hit them yet. Some days it feels like playing frogger.

    Very difficult and time consuming to control.

      I assumed the Association already had this authority, based upon the issuance of parking tags and guest passes back when the Springfield Metro Station first opened. The fear then was that commuters from outside Amberleigh would park for free in our lots and walk to the Metro. That never happened and the tags and passes were discontinued.

      I have lived in the community over 10 years and find that the parking situation is limited to a minor portion of the community. It is also unclear whether you would require fees to register the cars.

      This is a tough one. My husband thinks it should be limited to three vehicles per unit. I am concerned about a family of, for example, parents and two children, all of which have vehicles. Where would the 4th vehicle be parked? Having the limited parking that we have or limited the

# of vehicles that a unit is allowed can affect the salability of a unit. This happened to the townhome unit adjacent to me in Fla. The townhome and zero lot line home areas have limited

Page 5 of 13

parking. People looking at the unit next to me asked where visitors can park.  When I told them

where, they said that wasn’t enough and chose not to pursue the property.

      My main issue is when cars are parked on both sides of Crestleigh Way. It makes the road very narrow in some locations.

    I hate to visit communities with parking rules and limits.

      This has proven to be a huge pain to homeowners who live in neighborhoods with these restrictions. I strenuously disagree with this and quite frankly am tired of hearing it brought up over and over again by a small minority of owners.

    Without assigned parking I don’t believe it is fair to impose parking assignments and numbers.

    What we have now works well. People are considerate.

      It depends on what the restrictions would be.  I would hope that each household is allowed two cars? Would like more clarity on this before giving support.

    No, I like the charm of no assigned parking.

    We chose this neighborhood in part because it did not have a parking bureaucracy.

      I personally don’t want to see parking rules applied/enforced and prefer these issues be handled on a case by case basis.

      I would like to see two assigned parking spots per home. Also, would like to see parking restrictions for cars parked on Crestleigh Way. When cars are parked on both sides of Crestleigh Way, it make it very unsafe for cars driving and pedestrians to cross especially at the speeds that cars drive in this community.

    We don’t mind having free parking. We came from a place that had restricted parking and it

was a hassle.

      I also encourage you to publicize what the current rules are. For instance, I believe that if you have more than 2 vehicles, the extras are supposed to be parked in an overflow area. Not everyone in my circle knows about this.

      Absolutely  not. There is plenty of space for parking in our community, so there is no need to impose artificial restrictions on # of vehicles and assigning specific spots to residents.

    Absolutely not.

    No need to change it now. Things are working good.

      As someone who has lived in Amberleigh for over 10 years as a homeowner, the recent increase in rentals and AirBnB homes has created a significant parking issues. Two spots per townhouse should be max.

    We support parking spots.

      We need to work on parking assignment specially for resident like us who come late from work and parking is full not by resident but their guest. Because of these we were forced to park in main road (Crestleigh Way). At least we should only allow guest to parkin the main road (Crestleigh way).

      I support restricting the number of vehicles but I do not support the parking assignments and parking registration.  I like the unassigned parking.

      The number of vehicles allowed for each house should be enforced. One of our neighbors has 5 cars for only 2 drivers and a few neighbors have 3 cars for 2 drivers.

      Limits on the number of spaces per household would be useful, and also defined spaces, with defined visitor parking too.

      We have plenty of parking.  If concerned, you could also assign one parking space (with stenciled number) for each home.  All other parking is for visitors or extra cars.

Page 6 of 13

  1. 3. Fining. I support the Association having the ability to fine owners who do not comply with the rules of the Association concerning maintenance of homes, parking, trash.

 Yes 72.3%  No 24.7%

      Yes, but again would want a lot more information before voting for a specific plan. What would be the enforcement mechanism?

      Who is going to monitor all these things and how much is it going to cost? Trash, it is piled up twice a week and it is a waste of time to make sure it is put out at night.  Sometimes people go out of town and need to put out earlier and we don’t have name tags on our trash. Parking?  Same thing. Home. Problems I have seen in my area are renters. Owners in or out of town do not take care of trimming of bushes and lamp posts not working.

      Only for homes.  The board is not able to determine whose trash is causing an issue as most trash is bundled together.  And I don’t think the board is mature enough organizationally to handle parking fees as parking is currently open. Only if there are multiple notices and a hearing for the board to meet with the owner(s) involved before a fee is levied. The process needs to be clear, consistent and fair.

      However, the Association must make clear efforts to communicate to residents what the non- compliance issues are, and give them the opportunity remedy the issues. See comment #1 for the specific non-compliance communication process I suggest.

    We do not support a parking fine unless the parking violation is more specific … such as dangerous.

Would love to see a fine for not taking into account wind when setting out trash, but that would be impossible to enforce.

    I support this, but the current issues seem to be that the new trash company is extremely sloppy.

Every week there is trash left in the street that has fallen off their truck.

    The standard “warning” letters you leave is already more than sufficient.

      Not when applied to trash as you have not provided a way for us to properly throw out trash as we need dumpsters. There is no safe access from the back to the front to keep trash in sealed garbage cans.

      Yes, but again would want a lot more information before voting for a specific plan. What would be the enforcement mechanism?

      Amberleigh HOA should allow owners to put out their trash the night before at 6:00 p.m. If the owner(s) put out their trash before then, a fine should be given of $25.00. The Amberleigh BOD should exempt those owner(s) from putting out their trash if they are moving out or have construction going on due to no fault of their own. The Amberleigh BOD should be made aware of the circumstances for giving a fine.

      Again, there must be a period to allow the homeowner to correct the situation before any fines are accessed.

      This needs to be more specific: will fines be assessed during HOA inspections? Or if a disgruntled neighbor complains? Will owners be given a reasonable amount of time to remedy the issue before a fine is levied? Will the amount of the fine be appropriate to the misdemeanor?

      Steps should be taken to ensure we are dealing with the trash issue but we need to be accommodating of people’s schedules. I support providing trash bins to individuals but I do not support fining individuals.

      Yes with sufficient due process. The Association must first propose actions, such as fines, and given owners sufficient notice and opportunity to respond to proposed actions, before the Association decides to take actions.

Page 7 of 13

      Fines should be a last resort, what other alternatives to fines are an appropriate mechanism to ensure compliance?

      In a way, I do support it, but the fines should be minimal and after at least attempts to have the issue addressed.  There should be an economical means to address the issues that the board perhaps might supply to homeowners.

    Owner did not register a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote but provided the following comment: More detail is

required to register a vote on this issue.

      Whatever rules there are have to be clearly stated and not left up to someone to interpret. The yes comes with some caveats: What will the parking rules be?  And the trash rules?  It’s a definite no to trash dumpsters. The no goes to trash bins as well –who’s going to carry them up from the basement or take them out from the back?  I have rolling trash and recyclable bins in Fla that are easy to roll out of the garage to the curb, but the use of trash bins here isn’t practical.

    People spend $500k on an 1800 sq ft townhouse, they want their monies worth in a community.

Living next to slobs doesn’t help the property value!

      I also support on fining Association for not providing quality services to t he community. Examples – not providing quality check for grounds maintenance services; rising monthly HOA fees, but simultaneously switching trash pickup company that no longer provides free bulk trash pick up and is being very destructive towards trash bins.

    As long as there is still fair warning (for ex 30 or 60 days) to fix.

      Yes, the neighborhood should look nice but I would be reluctant to be aggressive about it considering the economy today.

      Would like to hear about what the exact fine would be. Leaving this one blank.  If you need a reply, it would be No based on the information I have now.

      (no checked response) To a certain degree that would be fine, however, the HOA has done nothing in years about homeowners leaving trash receptacles (sp) out for days on end, in some cases having them out ever single day. There is no ‘management company’ per se and homeowners don’t even know who the community liaison person is so that’s a wasted effort.

    Many homes in this community are not in good repair and it brings down the home values for all of

  1. u They don’t need to be super rigid rules, but basic low-cost care should be adhered to.

    Considerable notice.

      I’d like a definition of “maintenance of homes,” just so people aren’t rudely surprised when they’re fined for something they didn’t realize was a fining offense.

      Basically, this is a move by the HOA to get more money (as if the high quarterly dues are not enough) and exert greater control. There is no need to assess fines on residents, especially for parking when there is ample space to park. A warning is sufficient for home maintenance or trash violations.

    Must give warnings and fines be reasonable and proportional to infraction.

    Absolutely not.

      Warnings should be given to owner first.  Architectural and property infractions should be given more warnings/allotted time for owner review.

    Yes, it should be inspected every 6 months.

      I am only fine with the fines for the trash and if they violate the maximum number of cars restriction.

      It is open to interpretation. A warning should be sufficient, as homeowners, it should be fairly easy to obtain compliance without a monetary fine.

Page 8 of 13

  1. 4. AirBnB. I support the Association having the ability to address issues that we may not currently foresee but may occur in the future and impacts the HOA, such as AirBnB.

 Yes 71.28%    No 25.7%

 

 

      No Bring down property value.  Who si going to clean up after vacationers! This is not area make up as you go along.

      This is too vague and broad for me to comment.  Specifically for Airbnb, there is at least one business HQed in Amberleigh and I don’t think any issues were brought up from that. So I don’t know how AirBnB would be any different.

      I think labeling this issues “AirBnB” is limited thinking. I recall someone saying this should be broaded to “short-term rentals.” I want to see how the Board wants to address this before augmenting the board’s authority.

    Solve it when it happens.

    Owning a property should give the owner rights to let whoever they want stay in their property.

    The people who have AirBnb have too many people to accommodate parking Also many of the

Airbnb people do not throw out trash proper.

    But there should be community input on the issues that arise.

      Yes, as long as the ‘yes’ only authorizes the Association to address issues but is not a decision as to whether AirBnb should be permissible in Amberleigh.

    May also apply to rental homes which often are not as well maintained.

      This is too vague and doesn’t appear to let homeowners have a say in future situation. Also it is unclear how AirBnB affects the HOA if the owner maintains the home and pays their fees.

    In addition to AirBnB, here’s thought: require rentals to be at least 6 months.

    This is too vague to answer.

    This is worded very ambiguously. Would support if this was worded a bit more clearly.

    Need more details about what expanded abilities entails and what the limit is currently.

    In general we would support the Association having the ability to address issues related to

short-term rentals (e.g. VRBO,AirBnB).  However, this question as currently written would seem to give the board the ability to address any future unforeseen issues (i.e., not just short-term rentals), which is too broad.

      I agree short term rentals would be problematic for a townhome community in such close proximity to each other.

      I think perhaps AirBnB is an issue now; I know of at least one homeowner who rented out her basement level as an AirBnB.

      I support there being a mechanism to address unforeseen issues.  However, the decision cannot be just left to the Board.

    This is outrageous and unnecessary. No.

      Yes, but unforeseen issues should be presented at board meetings for owner review prior to board action. Perhaps notices as well?

    I own my home and should be able to rent it to whomever I would like to.

    I do not support AirBnB.

    Not enough space to put in my reply.

Page 9 of 13

  1. 5. Board Qualifications (a):  Do you support: Change current documents to prohibit those who do not own a home in Amberleigh from running and holding a seat on the HOA’s Board of Directors?   Yes 75.2%     No 20.8%

    Exclusion: residents who are long-time renters would have more input in the community well-being

and government and should not be excluded from such decisions if the titled owners are consistently off-site and clearly non-participatory in typical community events, etc.

      The board is always asking for volunteers for committees and the board. Given this constant need or demand, we cannot limit the supply ie: those who can serve on the board.

      To put it simply, this is a non-issue.  There are bigger issues (and this isn’t really an issue).  In addition, the Board is woefully short-handed. There are very few people who are willing to step up to board leadership as it is a volunteer position. And it is also very apparent during board meetings that some board members’ opinions are listened to and valued while others are not.  So, perhaps you can write into your own governance processes/strategies on how to recruit, retain and growing board members. You don’t need the community to do that.

    Why eliminate anyone willing to serve!

      I believe that only owners should be allowed to serve on the board. Renters do not have a long- term stake in the community and should not be able to serve.

      I cannot read the entire comment, but it seems like you are asking “prohibit those who do not own a home from being on the board” which makes sense to me.  If that is not the comment I will vote abstain.

      Exclusion: residents who are long-time renters would have more input in the community well-being and government and should not be excluded from such decisions if the titled owners are consistently off-site and clearly non-participatory in typical community events, etc.

      Only homeowners should be on the Amberleigh HOA Board of Directors. Renters should not be allowed to attend meetings nor serve on the Amberleigh HOA Board of Directors. It is up to the homeowner(s) to keep their tenant(s) abreast with the any rules and regulations changes to the Amberleigh Community.

    Renters should be able to have a voice

      Change Docs to allow both legal owners and adult immediate family members of owners who reside in the household with the owner (e.g. spouses of owners) to have standing to run for the Board and be elected.

    I think renters can be good board members.

      I would also like Board Qualifications to prohibit owners that do not reside within Amberleigh from serving on the Board.  I feel owners who live elsewhere and rent their property are not in the best position to represent the community.

    (voted yes) If you rent in Amberleigh, you live in Amberleigh. You’re a community member –

doesn’t matter if you own. Renters should be able to be board members.

    This does not seem complete.

    Only owners should be on the Board and make decisions about the community.

    Prohibit them from joining the board?  I would think that’s a given.

      People renting are usually paying a high dollar – often times more than the owners. I think they have rights too.

    If they live here they should get to participate in the board.

    (no checked response) The board would be comprised of community residents.

Page 10 of 13

      Yes, wording a little rough but yes, in order to be on the board you probably should own a home in the community.

    Yes, they have to pay more fees to owners because they are income to owners.

 

5b: Prohibiting more than one person per household from being on the Board of Directors at the same time?        Yes 82.1%  No 17.8%

 

      The board is always asking for volunteers for committees and the board. Given this constant need or demand, we cannot limit the supply ie: those who can serve on the board.

    To put it simply, this is a non-issue.  There are more serious problems (and this isn’t really a

problem.)

    Why eliminate anyone willing and able to serve?

    Board seats should be limited to one per household.

    If someone is willing to serve on the board it doesn’t matter what family they are a part of.

    Yes, it would be a conflict of interest having more than one family member being on the

Amberleigh HOA Board of Directors. The homeowners should have an impartial representative.

      I believe this is a reasonable measure. Individuals within a household, other than the Board member, who are interested in serving the community can do so by participation in a number of committees.

      Only a few board members – having more then 1 from the same household gives them an undue amount of influence in the community.

    Probably not? I’m not sure what problem this solves.

      (this seems to be intended for the comment below).  Comment below wouldn’t completely print, but land plots will show that homeowners do not own the sidewalks leading to their homes and own to the bottom of the steps and about 3 feet from the home except in the rear. The sidewalk fiasco a few years back was a HOA responsibility.

 

 

  1. 6. Approval Percentage. I support lowering the 75% of all titled owners required to make future amendments to the Governing Documents?    Yes 59.4%  No 37.6%

    I would if not lowered to 50%.  It should be at least 2/3 or 67%. This is not congress getting rid of

the filibuster!

      Amending the governing documents of the HOA is a significant decision. The means by which current titled owners are reached may not be satisfactory; owners may be inadvertently excluded because their emails are outdated, community facebook page lacks information, etc.

    I suggest considering that it may be # of homes (now owners) and for it to be 50% +1.

    I would say 2/3 vote.

      I do support change it to be 75% of homes instead of owners (if that’s the case, the question references ‘owners’ but the dropdown is about “homes”). And I can be open to a range between

60% and 70%, but it needs to be a significant majority. The primary reason is that for proxies for the Annual Meeting, the President is given those votes to do as he/she wishes.  That could be a large amount of voting power to be given to one person. Since that will likely continue, then changes to the Governing docs need a secured majority in favor of any change. Which means the board needs to educate folks, which means the Association needs to mature as an organization and that means more community involvement.  Which historically is a hard barrier to overcome in Amberleigh.

      While I support this, I do not think this will happen with the current board leadership or the current residential management company. This process requires really strong board leadership. While the

Page 11 of 13

current board leadership has a lot of institutional knowledge, it is also really stymied by legacy thinking and the ability to plan strategically. Also, the community does not trust the board. And, the board hasn’t prioritized actually planning out how they will make this happen. I do think it is a good step that the board is surveying the community for input.  But this survey should have come out a year ago so that 1) the board could choose a smaller group of issues to focus on and 2) the funds spent on lawyers could have focused on designing new language for the board’s chosen focus areas.

    I prefer 60%.  Is the survey per adult, or per household?  If it is per adult, please double our answers.

      I believe it should remain difficult to change the Governing Documents. That is something that should be well-considered if it is done.

    Because I like the bylaws to be as minimal as possible (more laws is more hassle for owners).

Lowering the percentage makes it easier to add more hassle.

      Amending the governing documents of the HOA is a significant decision. The means by which current titled owners are reached may not be satisfactory; owners may be inadvertently excluded because their emails are outdated, community facebook page lacks information, etc.

    I would say 2/3 vote.

    I suggest considering that it may be # of homes (not owners) and for it to be 50% +1

      I would if not lowered to 50%.  It should be at least 2/3 or 67%. This is not congress getting rid of the filibuster!

    Amendments are major changes, so should be few and far between. Thus a high bar is appropriate.

      In closing, the Amberleigh HOA BOD should make decisions based upon the future of Amberleigh community as a whole. Parking may not affect other streets but that does not necessarily mean that other streets will not be impacted with parking and other challenges in the future.

    Make it 51% for a majority

    We should restrict this to a majority of homeowners being 50% +1.

    51%

    In many cases, this is a 2/3 vote of active membership (owners) according to Robert’s Rules.

    Two-thirds (67%).

    Support two-thirds of titled owners

    51%

    Would support 60%

      As one property may have more than one titled owner, effectively doubling the voting power of a single property, I would prefer if the percentage could be based on the approval by individual properties. With the ever changing mix of multi-titled properties, as homes sell and are purchased, a “one property, one vote” approach may be more feasible for governance purposes

    Would like more research on this before giving a number.

      The majority should rule. However, people should be abit (sp) in relative peace and not be bombarded with silly minor issues.  If something is flagrantly obnoxious, then yes, say something,

but this isn’t a white glove military installation. The sidewalks issue a few years ago is an example of over-reach since the HOA owns all sidewalks except along Crestleigh Way … (truncated message).

    70%.

    I chose 50% because only two options were available. But I proposed two-thirds, of 66%. It’s a

majority, but  not as stringent as 75%.

      This is a move by the HOA to be able to make unilateral decisions an enact changes without the knowledge, consent, and approval of the majority of home owners. This not okay at all.

    60% – 2/3 of houses, not owners.

Page 12 of 13

    I support lowering to a slight majority, such as 55%.

      Absolutely not.  We need the HOA to have extreme levels of accountability and keep HOA costs down.

    Prefer 2/3 majority, but if 50% is more realistic …

    Really I would like 51% so there is a majority.

    60%.