Letter from the President on Deed Restrictions
Dear Neighbors,
I was made aware of an email sent out this week that contained false and misleading information concerning the proposed Deed Restrictions (DRs) set for final vote this weekend. While it is my strong desire to ignore these things as they pop up and let the truth speak for itself, I feel compelled to address this one in particular as much for its audacity as its proximity to the voting deadline. While I and the Board are not at all averse to dissenting opinion and honest inquiry, as clearly evidenced by the long and painstaking process of gathering input and feedback from the community during its development, I would be remiss to allow blatant falsehood to go unchallenged, even at this late hour.
Though part of public record, I have redacted the identities of both the Original (email) Poster and the NextDoor person he quoted from a lengthy public post on NextDoor over 5 months ago. Let me be clear that I have little quarrel with the Original Poster of the email. In fact, though I disagree with some of his assertions and his conclusion about the need for revised and consolidated DRs, I am encouraged by his general attitude and approach to life in regards to our neighborhood. I wish we had more like him.
Larry Jolly
President TSHOA
The Original Poster is shown in this style.
The NextDoor Poster is shown in this style.
My comments to both parties below are shown in this style.
From: xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: September 26, 2022 at 4:04:51 PM CDT
Subject: Why we should vote NO on proposed deed restrictions
My name is xxxxxxxxxx, and have lived in Tonkawa Springs since June, 1993. I am sending this information to express my opposition to our homeowner’s association board of director’s request to substantially change our deed restrictions. Ballots have been sent to you by email from the Tonkawa Springs HOA. Your printed vote can be submitted by sealed envelope to 3201 Fox Hollow or you can vote by email at: https://forms.gle/wt6M1n3LmQ722r5p6. In all cases, you must submit your vote by Sunday, October 2, 2022 in order to be valid.
While I respect the opinions and work of our neighbors who are members of the Board, I have a very different vision of the kind of neighborhood we want Tonkawa to be. There are elements of the proposed deed restrictions which are intrusive, vague, and potentially unenforceable. Components of the proposal may also favor some residents at the expense of others. I will limit my comments to general observations since our neighbor, xxxxxx, posted an excellent analysis of the proposed deed restrictions on the Next Door website and is appended to this email.
While working in my yard a few weeks ago a passing car stopped to talk with me. The passenger opened her window and said “We are admiring your beautiful neighborhood.” She was right, of course! My wife and I moved our family here over 29 years ago and raised our children in Tonkawa. We have been blessed with grandkids who have also enjoyed the peace and serenity of our neighborhood. I will say without reservation that Tonkawa Springs is every bit as safe, desirable, and attractive today as it was 29 years ago when we first moved here! Perhaps like me, you also breathe a sigh of relief when you drive into our neighborhood. It is a refuge from traffic and the gaggle of rules, regulations, and laws which govern our daily lives. Our homes and our neighborhood are our sanctuary! (The last thing we want or need is to engage in negative interactions with our neighbors.)
How was this accomplished? How have we managed to maintain the character and the beauty of our neighborhood for so many years? I believe all credit must go to the VOLUNTARY and responsible efforts of Tonkawa homeowners to maintain and protect their property. We did not need or welcome intrusive deed restrictions to care for our homes. We did not need the threat of penalties or legal action to force us to “do the right thing.” In cases where some intervention was required, our existing set of restrictions has been more than adequate. Do you want proof of my assertion? Just look around our neighborhood!!!
My vision for Tonkawa is one of peaceful, responsible enjoyment of our property where neighbors respect each other and resist unnecessary intrusions into each other’s affairs. In other words, I’d like Tonkawa to remain the same as it has been the entire 29 years I’ve lived here. If you share in that vision then you should insist that deed restrictions should:
Respect property rights
Not intrude on the homeowner’s ability to enjoy their property
Be well defined and allow minimal discretion to enforcement entities
Clearly set forth sanctions and penalties which can be used against us
In my opinion the Board’s proposal falls short on these requirements so I urge my fellow Tonkawa homeowners to:
VOTE AGAINST THE TONKAWA SPRINGS BOARD OF DIRECTORS DEED RESTRICTIONS
Dear xxxxxxxxx,
Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with the community. We are very grateful that you have shown so much pride in how you care of your property. Unfortunately, as you may have also observed over the years, not everybody does, nor will everyone in the future. That is the purpose of Deed Restrictions. I would also venture to say that one of the reasons why our neighborhood has stayed as nice as has is because we DO have them. Our purpose then in introducing revised and consolidated DRs is to bring them up to date, make them compliant with recent laws, strengthening them where they were weak or ambiguous, and even loosening them where they were too restrictive. We seek to address situations that could not have been anticipated when the existing sets were written in the late 1970s/early 1980s, along with those that could have been addressed at that time, but weren’t. These new DR’s are absolutely necessary, and very much reflect a deep commitment on the part of the Board to get it right, and to protect your rights! They acknowledge and reflect the uniqueness of our neighborhood, and are completely in line with what you stated as your personal visions above, even the one about sanctions and penalties for violations. This particular point has been a glaring and obvious omission in previous regimes, underscored by the numerous and very valid complaints for years that there was little enforcement options beyond the “nuclear” response of a lawsuit. We aim to change that, and though it must be implemented separately from the DRs, have already submitted as public record for consideration a modest “fine schedule” replete with all manner of due process. This is a measure that both current and previous Bylaws have called for (but never implemented), and is therefore not “new”.
The following comments apply to the NextDoor “Analysis” posted 5 months ago and “appended” herein—a post which was full of wrong information then, made even more glaring now in light of certain revisions since.
XXXXXXXXXX’s… ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED TONKAWA SPRINGS DEED RESTRICTIONS
1. Property Use – There is no reason to modify our existing deed restrictions in this regard. The summary statement that we should not be operating retail businesses or renting out our houses for weekend parties describes problems that do not currently exist and are unlikely to ever exist in this neighborhood. There is no legitimate reason for the HOA to intrude upon a private lease agreement between owners and tenants, or to add restrictions on short term rentals for those of us who might want to engage in home swaps or AirBnB our homes to offset vacation cost.
Thanks for bringing this up. All current (past) DRs include an absolute prohibition on any business or commercial activity conducted from a residence, and therefore could not have anticipated all the ways that contemporary Americans earn a living, old and young alike. The proposed DRs recognize that many people work from home these days and allows residents to have a home office. The issue of Short Term Rentals (STRs) is in fact a new phenomenon that needed to be addressed, at least in its current (VRBO/AirBnB) form. Personal note: I wanted them, and lobbied hard for their inclusion, albeit with restrictions. After much discussion and research, the idea was voted down as incompatible with our community, which was later confirmed by a majority of respondents in our Community Survey! Indeed there was a recent situation where a resident was renting out their home for loud parties, which resulted in a number of complaints, so this was not a solution looking for a problem. It was and is a resolution based on democratic process and thoughtful consideration. It’s also something that can be revisited at any time in the future and implemented in some form or fashion by the same process we are doing here.
2. Re-Subdivision – The implication in bold green text that “we like big lots” is immediately refuted by the proposed change which allows owners to subdivide lots that are larger than 2 acres and build more houses. The original deed restrictions prohibit subdivision and that is what we should stick with. Allowing owners to start subdividing lots is going to change this neighborhood in ways that are unpredictable. Do we have lots with waterfront that are over two acres? Does the water area count or does it have to be 2 lots with 1 acre of land area? None of this is specified and the repercussions of this change are potentially onerous. This proposal also reeks of self-interest as only a small minority of us will benefit at the potential expense of all. This change in and of itself is reason to vote NO on this proposal.
The “we like big lots” comment came from the “Explainer” document as a lame attempt at tongue-in-cheek humor meant to disarm and summarize the original draft – something most people got. It was not part of the actual DRs. The fact that subdivision IS allowed in the new DRs—but only under very restrictive circumstances—reflects the notion that we can and should protect the rights of a very few while also guarding the common good. It is often a hard thing, but it can be done. It should be noted however that 3 of the 4 existing (past) DRs allow subdivision of Lots. To address the disparity between existing DRs, the proposed DRs limit subdivision to only Lots that are two acres or larger. Otherwise, the proposed DRs are more restrictive on subdivision than the existing PRs. We put a lot of thought into this and every other DR – not a knee-jerk reaction.
3. Structures and Improvements – There is no information describing why the existing DR’s and bylaws were not in compliance with Texas SB1588 or what language was introduced to correct this. The description provided includes no information that could be used as a basis to make a sound decision on what is being proposed. This modification gives the HOA approval authority over areas that are not currently within their domain such as garage conversions, swimming pools, and storage sheds. There is no need to grant this kind of authority at this time.
Texas Property Code Chapter 209 governs DRs and their enforcement. Senate Bill 1588 was passed in the last session of the legislature and was codified in, and amended, Chapter 209. The proposed DRs reference the applicability of Ch. 209 and reflect the Board’s understanding of the changes made to Ch. 209 by SB 1588. Each of the current (past) DRs includes a paragraph titled “Separate Structures”. This paragraph explicitly applies to garages, carports, sheds or any other detached building or structure. It is incorrect to say these have never been subject to PRs.
5. Garages – The current deed restrictions already allow for variances on door location, in fact several have been granted over the years. There is currently no restriction on garage size, and there is no logical reason to add these restrictions at this time.
To NOT include DR restrictions on garages, maintaining standards for placement and construction adopted by the community for decades, along with recourse for variance requests, would be derelict. So would reasonable restrictions on size, also with the same variance request available with every DR.
6. Separate Structures – Specifically grants the HOA authority over any detached structure that we might want to construct in our yards. Sheds, walled outdoor patios, gazebos, or outdoor kitchens, you name it. This is a terribly worded deed restriction that will allow the HOA to become very invasive over time. There is no way this restriction should be approved as written.
Again, separate structures are already subject to the existing (past) PRs. It is simply incorrect to say that the proposed PRs are trying to expand the HOA’s authority. Safety and building standards, permitting, setback requirements, architectural compatibility and a number of other issues have been appropriately and reasonably addressed in all DRs which govern such activity. That has not changed. What has changed is the restrictions about what materials can be used, now loosened to read “of equal quality and aesthetic appeal…” This is the opposite of “invasive”!
9. Setback Requirements – There is no need to change these requirements at this time. All this does is allow owners to build closer to the property line which will increase housing density. This seems to be another self-interest change to the DR’s that may benefit a small number of owners at the expense of others. Additionally, variances would be required for all existing structures in violation which would immediately void the restriction, unless the HOA intends to attempt enforcement after the fact which would potentially initiate a costly legal battle with homeowners. Modifications to specific lot setbacks should be granted via the existing variance process with supporting evidence documenting the unique conditions requiring the variance. There is no reasoning given for why these lots should have different offset requirements and therefore it is not possible to make an informed decision on this change.
We actually DID give reasoning for the ONE change in setback requirements. The new DRs decrease the setback requirements for a limited number of residences ONLY along Spring Creek to allow residents greater use of their property. This allows residents, if they want, to gain more use of property they already own, particularly small back yards made even smaller by current 30ft setbacks off this street, a condition different than any other street in the neighborhood. Many residents have expressed concern about infringement on property rights, and we saw this as an opportunity to loosen the reigns a little bit for those few, with no harm to the greater community. Again, a change we could make because we were paying attention.
10. Time for Completion – The existing DR specifies a 6 month completion timeframe for exterior work. The proposed new language regarding variances is strange since as soon a variance is granted to one homeowner for this it must be granted to anyone who asks so the proposed change is either useless or if exercised will result in the DR being made null and void. This is not a change that should even be proposed.
This language is in all 4 current DRs which was simply carried over to the proposed DRs, for good reason now more than ever! In case you haven’t noticed, there’s a little bit of a labor shortage and all kinds of supply chain issues going on right now…and may for the foreseeable future. Projects that might otherwise take a month or two are now dragging on much longer. We absolutely can and will grant variances where needed on a case by case basis, a standard measure which both sets reasonable expectations and allows for unforeseen delays! Nothing about this DR makes it null and void.
11. Driveways – Several homes already have circular driveways and as soon as a variance is granted it will void the proposed DR just like the Time for Completion change. This change should also not be in the proposal.
This DR simply defines the width and material used for the construction of driveways. It in no way prevents circular driveways, which do exist. It simply prevents dirt or gravel driveways, or driveways that may introduce too much impervious cover. It’s a reasonable DR, with a very limited scope.
12. Swimming Pools – The HOA currently has no authority over this and there is no need for us to give them this authority at this time. This change will only result in a more invasive HOA experience for residents of Tonkawa Springs.
Below ground pools must adhere to certain construction requirements governed by local guidelines, and therefore are not addressed here. This proposed DR covers only above-ground pools which were not something that existed at the time of the current DRs were written, at least in their current form. The proposed DRs are simply addressing a situation that did not exist in the late 1970s/early 1980s, and since they can either look and act like grotesque, unsafe monstrosities, or really beautiful features like most other pools, we’d like for them to be closer to the latter than the former. A burst or unsightly pool can definitely have a negative affect on neighbors.
13. Fences – The current DR’s regarding fencing cover this very well. There are many examples of fencing taller than 6 feet in the neighborhood and all of these will require variances unless the intent of the HOA is to start enforcing this DR after the fact which would draw the HOA into a costly legal battle with one or more homeowners. We already have setback requirements to keep people from running their fences all the way out to the street. There is no valid reason for this proposed change.
In spite of valid objections to 8 – 10 ft. tall “hate” fences that have become somewhat of a blight in certain parts of the neighborhood, the proposed DRs do not include any height limitation on fences nor do they differ significantly from fence requirements in the existing DRs, except to allow a greater variety of materials.
15. Satellite Dishes and Antennas – Unless the HOA intends to start policing people’s DirecTV installs this would immediately require many variances for existing installations.
This language is similar to language in PRs for nearby neighborhoods and would only apply to future installations; not existing ones. Like all proposed DRs, this would only apply prospectively and not retrospectively.
16. Repair and Upkeep – The first mention of Paragraph 33, which is probably the primary reason behind this push to refile our DR’s. It is pretty clear that the intent of this change is to allow arbitrary fines to be levied by the HOA for what they deem to be properties not in compliance with this clause. Tonkawa Springs has never experienced a major problem with this and there is no reason to implement this change at this time other than the fact that we now have a management company running our HOA that would like to start fining us and making more money for both the HOA and themselves. This proposed change alone should force a resounding NO vote from all of us.
1. It is patently absurd that the reason for any kind of fine schedule/structure would be so that the TSHOA would somehow capriciously enrich itself or its management company. It would also be absurd that a compendium of Deed Restrictions would not have some sort of guidelines requiring folks to maintain their properties in a decent fashion. This is REALLY standard, and is in fact far more loosely defined than many DRs from other communities. And you’re right, most folks do generally keep their places up. But some do not…and some egregiously do not! It is for folks that this paragraph is written, and to not include it would be derelict.
2. The authority to assess fines and penalties was included in the HOA bylaws that were revised in 2013, an authority that remains in the current bylaws. The proposed DRs simply recognize that the HOA already has authority to assess fines and penalties; the proposed DRs do not give the HOA the authority to assess fines and penalties. In other words, fines and penalties are a separate issue and are indeed being considered as an integral part of a long over-due set of policies, but are not part of these proposed DRs.
20. Boats, Trailers and Recreational Vehicles – These are currently prohibited and it should remain that way, but the fact is that the existing DR has been violated over the years many times without enforcement so it is currently unenforceable. If we are to approve new DR’s and make them enforceable then the existing language should be used and these should be prohibited. Allowing long term storage on the property only benefits a small number of residents again at the expense of many and this language has clearly been written for the benefit of those owners.
Boats, trailers and RVs are NOT prohibited in the current (past) DRs. The proposed DRs employ language that clarifies how and under what conditions such vehicles must be stored. This will help reign in some of the more “creative” interpretations of proper storage “solutions” of the past. And by the way, just because there have been abuses of DRs in the past doesn’t give current or future offenders carte blanche. An example of how we have tightened language in an existing DR that was ambiguous and ill-defined.
22. Pets and Animals – The summary text indicates that cats are allowed to roam, but the DR states clearly that all pets must be contained within the owner’s yard or kept on a leash when they are not on the Owner’s lot. Outdoor cats will roam, there is no controlling that. This DR cannot be approved as written.
Not sure what summary text the writer is referring to. Read the DR. It’s pretty comprehensive. I think most reasonable people realize that the text is referring to dogs, not cats. And if and where it deviates from county and local law, those laws take precedent. There is a control mechanism for stray cats. Coyotes.
28. Private Nuisance – This is an absolutely onerous change that should never even be considered. This DR establishes that the HOA has the authority to arbitrarily declare an activity a private nuisance and commence enforcement procedures defined in Paragraph 33. This is an egregious power that can only result in political infighting and “Forest Creek” style HOA wars for those who have been in Round Rock long enough to remember that. We do not have these problems in this neighborhood, there is no need to start policing people in their homes. Please do not approve this, we will all regret doing it sooner or later.
Hardly an “onerous change”. This language simply tracks the current language that Texas courts use to determine what is or isn’t a private nuisance. All 4 current PRs prohibit “noxious activity” including “nuisance”. This current language provides no guidance to residents on what is or isn’t a nuisance. The proposed language was included to provide residents a better idea of what a private nuisance is. It is not an attempt to expand HOA authority, but may provide relief to residents who experience genuine harm from actions of another, for which there is no other remedy. I can think of many…
31. Maintenance Fund – Increases to our HOA fees should be proposed by the HOA board and approved by a vote of the homeowners, not issued by the HOA board. This DR change as written could result in our HOA fees increasing to over $1K/year in the next 5 years. This is not an acceptable change as written.
$1,000 per year? Really? Not only are our annual dues already way below what almost all HOA neighborhoods charge, paragraph 31 clearly establishes a maximum of $30/month ($360/year). Any change from the current dues of $15/mo will require a vote of the homeowners. And since we just raised it last year, it is unlikely to change that much anytime soon. Here is the verbiage from the revised DRs:
“31. Maintenance Fund: A maintenance fund to manage, maintain, repair or improve the entrances, amenities and common areas in the Tonkawa Springs subdivisions shall be established by a majority vote of the TSHOA Owners and maintained through a monthly assessment of $15.00 per month ($180/yr.) on each Lot in the Tonkawa Springs subdivisions. Williamson County has responsibility for street maintenance in the Tonkawa Springs subdivisions. The monthly maintenance assessment set forth in this Paragraph 31 may be increased periodically for budgetary needs by a majority vote of the TSHOA Owners but may not exceed $30.00 per month ($360/yr.). The maintenance funds shall be placed in a trust account and shall be administered by the TSHOA Board. The maintenance fund assessments shall be secured by a continuing lien in favor of the TSHOA placed against each Lot and all improvements thereon.“
33. Enforcement of Property Restrictions and Reservations – This is a massive change to the current DR that gives the HOA board extensive authority to penalize and fine homeowners for violations of other DR’s that grant the HOA board authority to arbitrarily define what constitutes a violation. This is completely unacceptable and should never be approved.
See previous comments pertaining to fines and penalties. Paragraph 33 would not expand HOA authority. It only lists the authority all HOAs already have under Texas Property Code Ch. 209 to enforce DRs and the authority the HOA has had in its bylaws since 2013 to enforce PRs. That’s it.
……………………………………………….
Friends, most of the shrill “objections” to the proposed DRs being flung about include misunderstandings, misrepresentations, or outright fabrications. Some are just differences of opinion. I encourage each one of you, if you haven’t done so already to actually read the proposed Deed Restrictions to determine for yourself which it is. Here it is.
Then please, go online and vote. Remember, under the rules of this election, a non-vote is the same as a NO vote. Your printed vote can be submitted by sealed envelope to 3201 Fox Hollow or you can vote online at:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfdYuA0CIWQgxQs2m1QV9K0RtPV_32nzJIPRrr1wg4ctqHlHQ/viewform
In all cases, you must submit your vote by Sunday, October 2, 2022 in order to be valid. Two votes are allowed per household, so don’t forget your rights!
Many thanks to all of you for your participation in this important process, especially to Dan Isenhower and members of the Board and past Boards who have worked so tirelessly to make Tonkawa Springs a better place to live.
Sincerely,
Larry Jolly
President, TSHOA
512.517.8733
