VOTE NO on Proposed Amendments 3 & 4

Keep the HOA Out of Our Homes!

Dear Neighbors:

By now, you should have received the Copenhaver Board’s transmission of proposed new amendments to the covenants directed at, among other restrictions, prohibiting homeowners from renting out “accessory dwelling units” located in your home, sometimes called “in-law suites” (referred to in the proposals as “Internal ADUs”) or from renting out extra rooms in your home (“room rentals”). These proposed amendments are numbered 3 and 4. Proxies were included in the Board’s mail package. A vote is scheduled for May 22, 2024.

If you haven’t already done so, please review proposed amendments 3 and 4, which are set forth below:

3. A single Internal Accessory Dwelling Unit may be occupied, but not leased or rented. “Internal Accessory Dwelling Unit” means a part of the existing Private Dwelling Unit or an addition to an existing private Dwelling Unit, with separate provisions for cooking, eating, personal sanitation and/or sleeping. Notwithstanding the foregoing restrictions on Internal Accessory Dwelling Units, the Board of Directors may permit the rental of one Internal Accessory Dwelling Unit on an exception basis due to the economic hardship of the owner(s) of the Private Dwelling Unit. If any Internal Accessory Dwelling Unit is being leased at the time of the recordation of these amendments, the owners of such Private Dwelling Unit(s) may continue such lease until the expiration of the existing term only.

4. No room(s) of a Private Dwelling Unit may be leased or rented for any period. Notwithstanding the foregoing restrictions on room rentals, the Board of Directors may permit the rental of one room in a Private Dwelling Unit on an exception basis due to the economic hardship of the owner(s) of the Private Dwelling Unit.

WE URGE YOU TO VOTE “NO” ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 3 AND 4

1. The Board should not interfere with your private use and enjoyment of your home without a valid reason

It is important to realize that Internal ADUs are legal and strictly regulated by Montgomery County, and have been for years. See link. Among other things, the regulations prohibit occupancy by more than two adults and require compliance with square footage limits, fire protection, and licensure requirements. Thus, the Board’s expressed concern with Copehaver homes turning into rooming houses filled with numerous unrelated adults has no basis. Internal ADUs have been legal for years in Montgomery County and only 2 Copenhaver homes currently rent out internal ADUs, making the restrictions a solution in search of a problem. The Board also seeks to justify the restrictions claiming that a renter of an internal ADU or a room does not have the same incentive to protect the neighborhood as a homeowner. However, entire homes are rented in this neighborhood, with no homeowner on site, and with no restrictions. There is no basis for concluding that a renter of a room or apartment in your home, with the homeowner on site, will be less considerate of the neighborhood than a renter of an entire home, with an absent homeowner. To the contrary, with a homeowner on site, a renter is likely to be more respectful of the neighborhood because any improper behavior is more likely to be observed and promptly addressed by the homeowner.

2. The restrictions are overbroad and make no sense

Proposed amendments 3 and 4 allow “occupancy” of an internal dwelling unit or extra room, but prohibit you from receiving any compensation in exchange (ie., from “renting or leasing”). This distinction is intrusive and illogical. Who you allow to live in your property and under what financial arrangement has no bearing on the character of the neighborhood and is your business. Moreover, as explained above, there is no basis for assuming that one or two persons renting part of your home, with you on the premises, are less likely to respect the neighborhood than a family renting an entire home with an absent homeowner.

3. Enforcement of the rental restrictions grants too much discretionary power to the Board

In an email from the Board to residents sent on Friday, February 23, 2024, the Board asserts that it interprets the rental restrictions to cover only rentals to the “general public” and that the Board would not enforce the rental restrictions against a homeowner renting to a family member for a “nominal fee” or to live-in help that receives lodging in whole or partial exchange for services. These representations should provide no comfort. First, the wording of the proposed amendments contain no such limiting language, and it is the language that governs, not the Board’s intended interpretation or exercise of enforcement discretion. Without a change in language, the Board’s representations are meaningless. Second, Board composition changes; the covenants are “forever.” A future Board would not be bound by the present Board’s promised interpretations or enforcement discretion. Third, enforcement discretion can be a very dangerous thing. There are no standards that would govern the exercise of the Board’s discretion, which can result in arbitrary and capricious actions. For example, a homeowner who finds themselves on the wrong side of the Board, for whatever reason, could be targeted for enforcement, while a favored homeowner might get a “pass.”

4. The “hardship exception” is offensive, invasive, and lacks any standards for administration

The exception in the restrictions for a homeowner who demonstrates “economic hardship” is, in short, outrageous. First, no homeowner should have to appear before the Board, hat in hand, and divulge their private financial information. Second, a homeowner may have many reasons for wanting to rent a portion of their home apart from economic hardship, including companionship, the need for assistance due to physical infirmity or illness, or a desire to help a friend or neighbor in need. The reasons are none of the Board’s business. Third, as noted above, there are no standards governing the Board’s determination of “economic hardship.” Is it for the Board to determine what the Homeowner’s budget should be? What other resources the homeowner could draw on? How “hard” is hardship?

What kind of neighborhood do we want?

In the Board’s February 23, 2024 email to the Community, the Board acknowledges that the proposed amendments to the covenants will restrict what homeowners are allowed to do within the four walls of their homes, but poses the question – what kind of neighborhood do we want?

Indeed, what kind of neighborhood do we want? A neighborhood that respects homeowners, respects our privacy, respects all members of our surrounding community, and isn’t afraid of diversity in a changing world.

Regards,

Copenhaver Neighbors Committee Against 3 & 4

Join Our Effort to Defeat Amendments 3 & 4!

Download flyer: No-to-3-and-4.pdf