A Look at Planned Communities in North Carolina

The North Carolina Planned Community Act (Senate Bill 801, now Chapter 47F) became law on Oct. 27, 1998.It applies to any planned community (defined as a development in which any owner is expressly obligated by written declaration to pay expenses which maintain, improve or benefit other real estate described in the declaration) developed after January 1, 1999, which contains more than 20 residential lots.

It also can apply to any smaller or nonresidential development which the developer chooses to subject to the act, or to any existing community which votes to incorporate the act into its existing declaration and bylaws.The act sets standards for the creation, operation, merger and termination of owners associations; for the management and control of common elements; and for punishing violations of the declaration by imposing fines or suspending privileges or services.

Charlotte has already become the battleground of planned communities legislators feared.Following are some dispatches from the front lines of the first skirmishes of the coming Millennium war pitting neighbor against neighbor.

Don’t Allow No Weed-Whackin’ ‘Round Here

Mike Perkins is an amateur gardener who is serious about his lawn. Six years ago Perkins bought a house and quarter-acre lot in an upscale Charlotte subdivision known as Pullengreen.The Pullengreen Homeowners Association contracts with a private landscaping company to mow the front yards (but not the rear) of all 52 homes for a monthly fee of $112 per month.Perkins pays the maintenance fees, but last spring when the landscape company waited too long to mow, he revved up his own push mower.The Homeowners’ Association threatened to sue.They want all yards to look the same.

Says Perkins, ‘It blows me away that they felt I didn’t have the right to cut my own lawn. This country was founded on the rights of the individual.If they take away my right to take care of my own property. where’s it going to stop?”The chairman of the association’s landscape committee is unsympathetic.“The militia people feel we shouldn’t tax people, too — and they hide up in the hills with guns.Is that right?If I didn’t like the rules, I’d go somewhere else.”

Said another homeowner, “If someone wants to complain, complain about something that detracts.Don’t complain about the best-looking lawn in the neighborhood.If they want everything to look alike, they should all look like Michael Perkins’ lawn.”

— From ‘He Wants to Manicure Lawn; Neighbors Threaten To Sue”The Charlotte Observer, May 28, 1998.

If You Want to See the Star Spangled Banner, Go to the Smithsonian

Doug and Jill Speer own a 3,550-square foot house on a corner lot in the Hunter Oaks subdivision in suburban Weddington.When the patriotic Speer flew the Stars and Stripes from a 20-foot tall flagpole in his yard, the developer sued for violation of the subdivision’s restrictions.Rather than face the expense of fighting the regulation in court, Speer agreed to remove the pole.

“I felt bad when I had to take that flag down,” Speer said.“It’s very important to me.I even put it in the side yard instead of the front so it wouldn’t bother anybody.Neighbors are unsympathetic.Said one, “I like Dale Earnhardt, but you don’t see me flying a No. 3 flag, do you?I think if you do give people an inch, they’ll take a mile.”

— From “Is Old Glory An Unfit Neighbor?”The Charlotte Observer, June 7, 1998.

“Doc" Wussow, a 72-year-old World War II veteran, recently lost his battle with the Homeowners’ Association of his community, Terravita, in north Scottsdale, Arizona.The development has a rule banning flagpoles and it argued Wussow’s was a nuisance and an eyesore.In a settlement, Wussow agreed to pay the associations $20,000 legal fees, and the association will allow him to fly his flag eight days a year.Wussow paid half his debt to the association, and there’s a $10,000 lien on his house for the other half.

Wussow’s brother, Robert was killed in a bombing mission over Germany on Oct. 8, 1943.“I fly the flag for my brother and all the boys who died in all the wars,” said Wussow.“I never expected it to be a problem.I'd do it all over again.Not for me, but for all the boys we remember on days like today.But I sometimes wonder if people know what this country is all about any more.I’m not sure I know myself, sometimes.”

— From “A Hero In His Own Back Yard”The Charlotte Observer, Nov. 13, 1998.

Where is the ASPCA When You Really Need It?

Ron Cooper, a Charlotte condo owner, was warned by his homeowner’s association that his dog was larger than their restrictions allowed.Cooper ignored them.The association imposed a fine of $75 per day, and placed a lien on Cooper’s condo.When the fine passed $11,000, Cooper declared bankruptcy.The dog now lives with relatives in South Carolina.

“I’m amazed with the number of leave-me-alone Americans who like all these restrictions,” said Dan Cottingham, a Charlotte real estate agent.“They like the stability, the plan, the cleanliness.The freer you are, the greater your willingness to give things up.I liken it to a marriage — Once you’re happy with someone, you get married — and talk about restrictions!”

— From “Subdivision Rules Upset Some, But Others Love Them.”Charlotte Observer, June 7, 1998.

Why Can’t These People Have the Self-Discipline

To Buy a Mercedes Like the Rest of Us?

Bernice Hicks has three reserved parking spaces in front of her $80,000 condominium, but can’t park her Nissan minicab pickup in any of them.Her south Charlotte development, “Carmel Chace,” has a no-truck restriction.After battling the association’s board of directors, hiring a lawyer and blocking a tow truck with her body at 4 a.m.Hicks began parking at a nearby church and walking to her home.Hicks says she only discovered the no-truck rule after she moved in, and the 93 homeowners won’t agree to change it.“People have choices of where they want to live,” says Nancy Steller, president of the homeowners association.“If they choose to have a pickup, they should choose to live somewhere else.”

Hicks’ neighbors Billy and Valerie Medlin park their teal green 1998 Ford F-15O with the Triton V-8 engine in a field adjoining their condo.They, too, say they didn’t find out about the board’s rules until closing, and by then, it was too late.“Basically we’re a very quiet, peaceful, small condominium complex,” says Nancy Steller.

“Most of our homeowners would like it to remain the nice place it always has been.The thing people forget is a truck is not limited to a pickup, or a nice truck.There are trucks with ladders hanging all over them, trucks full of equipment, trucks pulling trailers.

“I’m a carpenter,” says Billy Medlin.I have to have a truck.How else am I going to carry all my tools?I cannot work without a truck. It’s my livelihood.”What frustrates him most is that the place is full of sport utility vehicles:Jeeps. Blazers; they’re all allowed.

Typical of the association’s response is a memo sent to Hicks in 1996:“The homeowners have adopted a set of rules by which we are to conduct ourselves for the common good of the community.When rules are violated, it causes anxiety on the part of the homeowners who are self-disciplined enough to abide by the rules.”

— From “No Trucks Allowed?"Charlotte Observer, June 24. 1998, and “Woman Finds Allies in Battling Ban.”Charlotte Observer, June 28, 1998.

The Good News is, We Don’t Mind If You Have a Flagpole

Charlotte radiologist Jim Fagan and his wife spent two years planning their new 5.000-square-foot, $1 million house on Queens Road West in Myers Park.After construction began, the Myers Park Homeowners Association sued Fagan for violating a 1936 restriction placed in a prior deed for the lot, which requires a 15-foot setback from the side property lines.Fagan’s house was designed to comply with the city zoning code, which requires a mere 10-foot clearance.

The association argued that if Fagan was allowed to continue construction, it could open the door for future violations of the neighborhood deed restrictions.When construction stopped, the association amended the original complaint to include a nuisance claim, alleging that the unfinished frame was a notorious eyesore which constituted a detriment to the neighborhood.

Five feet of property was also the issue in the Dilworth neighborhood over the summer, when residents objected to construction of a stylish new house being built too close to the street.The owners wound up trimming five feet from the facade at a cost of $ 40,000.And a setback violation also led another family to tear down a partially-built house on nearby Croydon Road after neighbors complained.

In October, the Myers Park suit was settled when Dr. Fagan’s title insurance company agreed to pay for the demolition of the house. The company had insured construction under the city code instead of the deed restriction. “It’s a tremendous win for the neighborhood: said the association’s attorney. “Interestingly, the neighborhood really has no hard feelings about Dr. Fagan.’

“The feeling isn’t mutual,” said Fagan.“I intend to build there, but as far as I’m concerned, it’s a capricious enforcement of the rules.I would have liked to have fought this to the finish.”

— From “Homeowner Will Raze House That Violates Deed Restrictions.”Charlotte Observer, Oct 30. 1998.

You want to find out more about North Carolina Property Rights Foundation?
Please click below!