Home › Forums › Tower Shores Forum › Proposed changes to bylaws and restrictive covenants › Reply To: Proposed changes to bylaws and restrictive covenants
Thank you for your legal research and your proposed changes but it isn’t enough that existing footprints are maintained. Existing building rights should be maintained too. For example, a replacement house was recently built behind the Atlantic Watergate tennis court (it may still have some construction going on). From what I can tell by looking at it, it has a fixed awning that extends right to the property line. This is allowed under the existing Covenants since there is no side-setback requirement between houses in the “commercial” area. (The houses on Nomad Lane and Villa Way are built about one foot apart and the roofs actually overhang one another in some instances.) Under the proposed changes, this awning would not have been allowed since a 10 foot setback is required where an “R-1” lot meets an “R-2” lot. (Under the proposed designation scheme, most lots on Nomad Lane and Villa Way are R-2 while the lots comprising the Atlantic Watergate tennis courts are R-1.) So maybe the house under construction will be grandfathered in, but what about their neighbors, they’ll be prohibited from adding similar awnings? Doesn’t seem fair! This is but one complication, there are bound to be others. The risk of having commercial properties built merely because of a “commercial area” designation covenants is not a real risk in any substantive sense. I have spent hours on this and have still not heard any good reasons to change the building covenants, even with preservation of existing footprint.