Home › Forums › Tower Shores Forum › Proposed changes to bylaws and restrictive covenants › Reply To: Proposed changes to bylaws and restrictive covenants
The committee working on the revisions to the Bylaws and Restrictive Covenants appreciates all input and comments from the community. These are the TSBA governing documents that apply to each of as owners. We are also both puzzled and frustrated that we’re now hearing from some in the community about what they believe should be changed after having months to make comments. This is where we stand today:
– After almost 2 years of work, we posted the proposed documents on the website in March and requested that owners review and comment. Several owners did offer suggestions, most of which were incorporated into the documents. The updated documents were posted on the website and an email sent to each owner asking that they review the updated documents and offer comments.
– At the July 13 meeting of the TSBA Board, the documents were approved as the final version and a ballot was sent to all owners shortly thereafter asking for their approval (Yes or No) of these documents.
– In order for a vote to be official at any TSBA annual meeting, 40% of all owners (90) need to be represent in person or by proxy or this year due to COVID-19, by returned ballot.
– As of today, 11/09, we have received approximately 40 returned ballots. To revise the proposed changes to the governing documents at this point would require discarding these votes to approve/disapprove and require that each of these 40 owners be send another ballot asking for their vote on the updated version. This would require significant work in a short period of time and is not practical.
– Most importantly, we feel that the differences in the proposed version of the Restrictive Covenants, Section 4-G which reads:
“In the case that a building on a designated R-1 or R-2 Lot is not in conformity with these setbacks at the time of the adoption of this version of these Restrictive Covenants, it will not be considered to be in violation of the Restrictive Covenants. Furthermore, the existing setbacks will be considered the setbacks for that lot, and if damage were sustained as to require rebuilding, such setbacks shall be honored.”
and the language proposed by the attorney engaged by Ms. Adler which reads:
“In the event that a building, or any portion thereof, on a designated R-1 or R-2 Lot is not in conformity with any of the provisions set forth in these Restrictive Covenants at the time of the adoption and recording hereof, that building, or any portion thereof, will not be considered to be in violation of these Restrictive Covenants. Furthermore, in the event of the demolition, destruction, or renovation of such nonconforming building, whether full or partial, requiring the full or partial rebuilding of the same, the building existing at the time of these Restrictive Covenants may be duplicated in its entirety irrespective of any of the provisions herein.”
are minimal in that “…damage…” is replaced by “…demolition, destruction or renovation…”
– Further, we acknowledge that despite our best efforts, the proposed documents are not “perfect”. Another committee can be formed to propose further revisions to the documents and place the revised versions on the ballot for consideration by owners at a future annual meeting of the TSBA.
In the meantime, the committee asks that this version be approved by owners when submitting their ballots.
Note that all ballots must be in the hands of the Election Committee by 9/1.