MLK Shabbat Service on Jan. 17: Speaker, Toni Holness, MD ACLU Public Policy Director

Cherrywood HOA Members: Please read the Pro and Con articles before voting on the proposed Declaration Amendment Changes

On December 13, I received the Winter 2019 edition of the Cherrywood Chronicle, the Newsletter sent to all members of the Cherrywood Homeowners Association by the Cherrywood HOA Board of Directors.  I have been Secretary of the Board since last winter, but all material published in the Newsletter is controlled by the Board Member who actually handles the publication. The Winter 2019 edition contains items which suggest approval of the September 2018 Declarations Package, but ignores the fact that there is a dissenting view.  

The “Words from the President” article on the front page “urges all who have not voted to help us close these issues.” Unfortunately, HOA Board President Lee Kidd forgot to mention that the link he provided  (https://tinyurl.com/cherrywoodhoa) includes two important documents:  One written by him, supporting the Declaration Amendment Package (“ForProposedDeclarationChanges”) and one, written by me, opposing the Package (“Against Proposed Declaration Changes”).  It is noteworthy that this inclusion of a piece opposing the Declarations Package proposal is the first time any HOA publication has provided any discussion of arguments against ratification, notwithstanding my previous efforts on my part to include the other side.  [1]  

So for many members, this may be the first opportunity they may have to see the Pros and Cons of the proposal, so they may make informed decisions as to whether approval of the Declaration is in the best interest of the community.  I believe that it is not.

For members' convenience, the Pro and Con pieces may also be found here and here. 

Please note that members may change the votes they have already cast – indeed, some have already done so.   That ballot may be found at https://tinyurl.com/cherrywoodhoa at “DeclarationConsent.”  I suggest voting DO NOT CONSENT.

Lee's piece focuses on the fear of proliferation of Accessory Dwelling Units.  My piece makes the case why that fear is unwarranted, and why other problems with the Declaration Package are so significant that we should not enact the Package.  

For the reasons summarized below and set forth more specifically in the Case for Rejecting piece here, I urge members to vote AGAINST the Package and to reconsider any votes in favor they may have already cast before they had seen the arguments against the Package.

************************

In September 2018, the HOA counsel offered a package of Declaration Amendments that would radically change the relationship of the HOA to the membership.  The explanatory language provided by counsel was dense and, in many respects, hard to understand.  The Package is all-or-nothing -- in other words it must be accepted in its entirety or not at all.  Much has been said about the proposed prohibitions of both detached and attached Accessory Dwelling Units, but the proponents of the Package have not addressed the very serious problems raised by the Leasing changes, which would, for the first time, significantly restrict the ability of homeowners to have the freedom to do what they want with their own property, and give the Board additional powers which would, in effect, turn the HOA into an form of "sub-government" -- something we have never had in Cherrywood. 

While I provide detail in the links provided here, here is a summary of the problem, and my response to those who support approval of the Declaration package:

The Case For Approving the Proposed Declarations Changes characterizes them as “a very modest update of our existing covenants.” This is simply not the case.  The existing Declarations include no restrictions whatsoever on what we may do with our property. The proposed changes would, for the first time, add a number of restrictions that go far beyond the proposed prohibition on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), including invasions of privacy and unreasonable restrictions on homeowners' ability to use their own homes. 

The Case For Approving piece also states that the proposed changes were prepared by legal counsel “based on previous discussions among Association members at our annual meetings.”  But it fails to note that these meetings are typically attended by fewer than 10% of HOA homeowners. 

A vote FOR (i.e., “Consent”) approves the entire Package of changes.  We do not have the opportunity to vote for some, but not all, of these changes.  This problem was raised by me and others at the 2018 Annual Meeting (and by others at the 2019 Annual Meeting), and I raised it again once I joined the Board a year ago, but the Board has continued to go with the all or nothing approach, on the ground that it had already paid the legal counsel a lot of money, and to start over would be too expensive.   

The Case For Approving presentation does not address some of the most significant proposed changes.  Rather, it just says that the proposed Amended Declaration “incorporates other restrictions on leasing to protect the interests of all homeowners.”  It does not explain the need for these changes, nor does it attempt to address the problems that those proposed provisions could cause.  The Case For Rejecting presentation sets forth the serious problems that would be created by the leasing provisions.  

Finally, the fear that failure to pass the Package would lead to a “doubling” of the population density of Cherrywood is unwarranted.  Please look at my analysis of the ADU situation before assuming that it is necessary to act now, notwithstanding all the other problems with the Package, including the fundamental change of the relationship between the HOA and its members.

There is another factor I urge members to consider – an issue which Lee raised subsequent to the writing of the Pro and Con articles that are now on the tinyurl.  In the course of exchanging drafts, Lee recognized that the leasing restrictions could terribly impact "snowbirds," older homeowners who might want to spend the cold autumn and winter months in warmer climates.  He opined that the Board could accommodate those concerns, but I pointed out that other provisions of the proposed amended Declaration made that impossible.  Lee took the view that if I was right about the inability of the Board to lawfully make accommodations, then the Board should withdraw the all-or-nothing package altogether.  The letter Lee presented at the most recent Board meeting, suggesting that we ask the HOA counsel whether my concerns were correct, may be found here.  This draft letter, prepared jointly by Lee and me, fairly describes our positions, including my explanation as to why the Board would not have the authority to grant waivers or other accommodations. At its December 12 meeting, the Board decided to contact counsel by phone to secure advice. (Since Board meetings are open to all members of the HOA, none of this is private or proprietary information of the Board itself.) 

And even if the amended Declaration would allow the Board to make accommodations for  unanticipated or hardship situations (something questionable, at best, given the language of the proposed Package), this would highlight the fundamental change that the amended Declaration would bring:  For the first time, the Board – not individual members – would be making decisions as to how people could use their property.  For the most part, the Board is a self-perpetuating group, since very few people volunteer to run for the Board.  And, given the proxies sent out before most Board meetings, it is impossible for the small percentage of members who attend Annual Meetings to challenge any slate presented by the Board.  Making the Board a form of sub-government could create fissures within the neighborhood that we have never had in the past.

Nothing distributed by the HOA since the proposed amended Declaration was presented to the membership 15 months ago has ever recognized or grappled with this defect, which at least several Board members believe would be cause to withdraw the Declaration Amendment votes altogether.  For the front page Newsletter article to urge that members vote now to "help us close [the] issue" without noting this very serious problem and without noting the Board's effort to see if it is fixable if the Declaration amendments are approved, is unfortunate.

So I urge all members to consider this point and to read the Case for Approving and the Case for Rejecting, links for which I again provide here and here, as well as the December 12 draft letter (linked here), so that they can make informed decisions about the need for the all-or-nothing Declaration Package, and whether any benefit that might accrue is worth all the harm that could and would be created.  

David Fishback, Secretary

Cherrywood Homeowners Association Board of Directors

fishbackhoa@gmail.com

---

[1]  The rejection of my earlier efforts to present the arguments against ratification through formal HOA mechanisms led to my writing of these two blogposts, which may or may not have been read by very many members. See https://davidfishback.blogspot.com/2019/04/cherrywood-homeowners-please-vote-no-on.html and https://davidfishback.blogspot.com/2019/09/cherrywood-hoa-members-please-vote-no.html 

"Snowbird" problem (Cherrywood HOA)

Draft letter submitted to Cherrywood HOA Board on Dec. 11 to request opinion from the HOA's counsel

Dear XXXXXXX,

In the course of discussions within the Cherrywood Homeowners Association Board regarding the proposed Declaration Amendment package submitted to the Cherrywood membership in September 2018, a difficult question has arisen.

Section 4(a) of Article IV presents a number of restrictions on leasing, and one member of the Board, David Fishback (a retired attorney who was not on the Board when the amendments were first presented last year) believes that the restrictions on leases under six months would preclude an owner who be away for less than six months from having a house watcher stay at their house. If true, this would create hardships on individual members that no one on the Board would want to impose.   I do not believe this is the case, but if it is true, I would consider it a critical flaw in the new declaration.  In fact, if the new declaration precludes a house watcher staying for less than six months, I would recommend ending the vote on the Declarations. 

David’s thinking on this matter is as follows:

            Section 4(a) requires that an “Owner shall not lease his Lot for an initial term of  less than six (6) months.”  The impact of this on older HOA members could be very negative.  If, for example, a retiree chooses to be a “snowbird” living in Florida for several winter months, they might understandably wish to arrange for someone to live in their house (with or without “consideration”) to watch the place.  But Section 4(a) would bar such an arrangement, since anyone other than a         member of the owner’s household would be considered a “tenant.” Moreover, is noteworthy that many homeowner insurance policies are voided if a house is  vacant for more than 90 days – and that is a risk no homeowner should have to bear.

So our first question is whether David is correct in concluding that the amended Declaration would preclude the “house watcher” situation described above.  If David’s assumption is not true please explain why.

My response to David’s concern is that if this situation arose, we would ask you for an opinion on how we would be able to resolve the matter under the rules that would exist if the declaration were approved.  Please let us know what your recommendation would be for this question.

David’s reply is if the Declaration precludes the ‘housewatcher” situation, one possible remedy would be if the Board had the authority to grant a waiver or modify the amended Leasing Requirements to allow such a situation.  David believes that the proposed amended Declaration package, as written, would not give the Board those options because (1) nothing in the governing documents permits the Board to grant waivers to clear provisions of the Declaration and (2) the “right to promulgate and adopt additional Rules and Regulations affecting Leasing” only extends to rules and regulations that are consistent with the Declaration itself.  In David’s reading, the language of Section 4(g) is unambiguous: the Board would only have the right to adopt “additional” rules and regulations – i.e., rules and regulations that would add to, not cut back on, the rules and regulations mandated in the amended Declaration. So, in David’s view, the Board could add restrictions (since the Declaration would be silent on any further restrictions) but could not loosen restrictions that the Declaration had specifically mandated.

If David is correct in that (1) we have a problem with the ‘housewatcher” situation, and (2) there is no solution short of new Declarations, Lee would recommend ending the vote.

Therefore, our second question is if there is a problem with the ‘house watcher” situation, is there a solution?  This could solution could be:

1. If under the amended Declaration, the Board would have the authority to grant waivers or change the Leasing Requirements to loosen the mandates.  (David has stated above why he does not believe this would be allowed), or

2.  Some other solution that you propose.

Another possible case is that the option is that regulators (possibly the CCOC) or courts will only take a case if there is an injured party.  If you propose a solution that does not injure anyone, and if no one had standing to oppose it, maybe David’s analysis does not matter.  David’s view, however, is that the standing issue would be controlled by the language in the proposed Article VI, Section 1(a), which provides that “failure to comply with the Association’s Government Documents” can result in legal action brought by the Association or any other Owner.”  David believes that this language provides standing to any member of the Association to seek enforcement of the Governing Documents. 

So our third and last question is would individual Owners have standing to oppose any resolution developed by the Board and another Owner who had sought a waiver or an alteration in the Leasing Requirements.

Sincerely,

Lee Kidd, President

Board of Directors, Cherrywood Homeowners Association

The Case for Approving the Proposed Declarations Changes for the Cherrywood Homeowners Association

Submitted Dec. 6, 2019

THE CASE FOR APPROVING THE PROPOSED DECLARATIONS CHANGES

The Amended Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for the Association are a very modest update to our existing covenants. Please see the Cherrywood Attorney’s letter to homeowners at tinyurl.com/cherrywoodhoa for the notice sent last year.
The proposed Amended Declaration addresses the following issues affecting the community:

1. Creates a prohibition on the installation of telecommunication towers within the Association
   
2. Prohibits short-term rentals such as Airbnb and accessory apartments
   
3. Incorporates other restrictions on leasing to protect the interests of all homeowners
   
4. Improves the operations of the Association by enabling the Association to recoup all expenses associated with the collection of delinquent assessments. Without this change, homeowners who pay their assessments on time will continue to subsidize the expenses for the collection of delinquent assessments.
   

If these changes are made, the HOA will still have no architecture review or other restrictions that most HOAs have. These changes were prepared by our legal counsel (who specialize in HOA law) based on previous discussions and votes among Association members at our annual meetings.

The driving force for making these changes now is the County’s refusal in 2018 to acknowledge a unanimous position taken at a HOA general membership meeting to oppose Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) as well as any other zoning change that increases the density of Cherrywood. The County told our HOA attorney that the HOA could only oppose an ADU if it was so stated in the Declaration for the HOA. Hence, the initiative began in 2018 to update our Declaration.

The move to update the Declaration took on even greater urgency this past Summer when the County passed Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) 19-01. This new County law removes the requirement that ADUs be at least 500 feet apart and allows second houses in the back yards of every single family detached home in Cherrywood. These second houses could be two stories or trailers up to 32 feet in length. Every single family detached home in Cherrywood could become a two family residence with a second house in the back yard starting on January 1, 2020 unless our Declaration is updated to prohibit these units. This amounts to rezoning your community after you have already invested over a half million dollars in your property in Cherrywood.

ZTA 19-01 will essentially allow the density in Cherrywood to double. These are not the conditions under which most people purchased their homes in Cherrywood. There will be increased strain on existing resources (schools, police, fire). Additionally, Cherrywood streets are narrow and without curb and gutter and doubling the density will mean more traffic and cars parked on the streets and courts further impeding traffic flow. While the County will consider the parking pad sufficient parking for another residence on the same lot, the reality is that the ADU cars will end up on the street when the primary residence owner chooses to have open access to their garage. More cars on our narrow streets will impede traffic flow and result in delayed response time and more blockages of large vehicles such as fire engines, trash trucks, and snowplows. During the public testimony period, parking issues were the main complaint related to the County’s legal and illegal ADUs.

Other negative points about doubling the density in our community that have been made include:

Environmental – More impervious surface to further tax our storm water system built for half the density. This will result in more flooding issues. Less oxygen- exchanging foliage and more cars locally will also cause more local air pollution.

Privacy/Visual – Your backyard deck or pool could now be adjacent to a new

residence where you formerly had more privacy while looking at greenery.

Noise - more people per square mile means more cars, more heat pumps and air- conditioning units running

Crime - likely won’t decrease. For example, currently if a stranger is behind your house at night, you might inform the police. With houses in the back yard, strangers in the backyard could be commonplace.

Declining Property Values - Most people moving to Cherrywood did so under the current zoning to have a little more space and less congestion than urban living. With overcrowding, these amenities will be diminished.

Accelerating Growth of ADUs - There is a risk that people will begin to buy homes in Cherrywood with the plan to build an ADU.

It is relevant to note that County Executive Elrich testified against ZTA 19-01 and even went around the County trying to alert residents to the details of this zoning change such as the ability to convert an ADU to an Airbnb after a year (https://montgomerycountymd.gov/exec/newsletter/2019/5-30.html). The Greater Olney Civic Association (GOCA) also unanimously opposed ZTA 19-01 as did the Montgomery County Civic Federation. ZTA 19-01 allows for drastic changes in the density and character of the neighborhood AFTER people have purchased their homes. Most communities with architectural restrictions will be able to prohibit ADUs by exercising their restrictions. Cherrywood does not have any architectural restrictions so our only option to preserve the current density of our community as voted at the 2013 annual meeting is to update our Declaration.

Some people have expressed concern that the updated declaration would preclude allowing relatives to move in. This is not the case. The only restriction involves setting up an ADU. A few have suggested to take a wait and see approach before passing the update. The problem with this later approach is that the Declaration update will not affect anyone

who already has an ADU so we cannot wait for a problem to develop and take action. ADUs are permanent changes to your house (especially second houses in the backyard) and are likely to remain part of the property in perpetuity.

All of the proposed Declaration changes benefit the HOA. A prohibition against accessory apartments is now vital to our community. Collecting signatures is an extremely tedious process. For example, the Pond transfer is like giving free money to every person in the HOA and there are only positives, yet after a year only a little over half the HOA has voted. At the current time, over 97% have voted for the pond transfer and over 80% have voted for the Declaration update. The Board strongly urges approval of the pond transfer (Parcel E) and the Declaration update (especially before ZTA 19-01 takes effect on 12-31- 2019).

(Lee Kidd, President
Cherrywood HOA Board of Directors)

The Case for Rejecting the Proposed Declarations Changes for the Cherrywood Homeowners Association

Submitted Dec. 7, 2019

THE CASE FOR REJECTING THE PROPOSED DECLARATIONS CHANGES

The Case For Approving the Proposed Declarations Changes characterizes them as “a very modest update of our existing covenants.” This is simply not the case.  The existing Declarations include no restrictions whatsoever on what we may do with our property. The proposed changes would, for the first time, add a number of restrictions that go far beyond the proposed prohibition on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

The Case for Approving piece also states that the proposed changes were prepared by legal counsel “based on previous discussions among Association members at our annual meetings.”  But it fails to note that these meetings are typically attended by fewer than 10% of HOA homeowners. 

A vote FOR (i.e., “Consent”) approves the entire Package of changes.  We do not have the opportunity to vote for some, but not all, of these changes.  This problem was raised by me and others at the 2018 Annual Meeting (and by others at the 2019 Annual Meeting), and I raised it again once I joined the Board a year ago, but the Board has continued to go with the all or nothing approach, on the ground that it had already paid the legal counsel a lot of money, and to start over would be too expensive.   

The Case For presentation does not address some of the most significant proposed changes, which have been the subject of considerable discussion in the community, other than to say that the proposed Amended Declaration “incorporates other restrictions on leasing to protect the interests of all homeowners.”  It does not explain the need for these changes, nor does it attempt to address the problems that those proposed provisions could cause.

Finally, the fear that failure to pass the Package would lead to a “doubling” of the population density of Cherrywood is unwarranted.

LEASING RESTRICTIONS

The Package includes significant restrictions on homeowners’ freedom to lease any part of their homes, including a requirement that homeowners must identify to the HOA Board the identities of “tenants” in their homes. According to proposed Section 4(a), Article IV:

             A "tenant" shall include any person occupying the Lot other than the Owner or a member of the Owner's household, even if the tenant has not paid any consideration.

The phrase “even if the tenant has not paid any consideration” means that if a friend or relative not in your “household” – a term which is not defined – is living with you, you will be obligated to provide their identities to the Board, even if they are not paying rent.   I have not heard any rationale for this invasion of privacy. What would this or any future Board do with this information? 

Another provision of Section 4(a) requires that an “Owner shall not lease his Lot for an initial term of less than six (6) months.”  The impact of this on older HOA members could be very negative.  If, for example, a retiree chooses to be a “snowbird” living in Florida for several winter months, they might understandably wish to arrange for someone to live in their house (with or without “consideration”) to watch the place.  But Section 4(a) would bar such an arrangement.  Moreover, is noteworthy that many homeowner’s insurance policies are voided if a house is vacant for more than 90 days – and that is a risk no homeowner should have to bear.

In addition, Section 4(a) also requires that tenants who are not leasing the entire lot may not reside in the home if the Owner does not “continue also to reside in the Lot with the tenant on a full-time basis.”  The impact of this provision is that if elderly owners of the home arrange with their adult child and their family – or close friends – to live with them, but later need to go into an assisted living facility for an extended period of time, then the Owner would have to lease the entire home to the younger adult children or friends.  Families in such difficult situations should not be required by the HOA to go through these sort of legal hoops to avoid the prospect of eviction – and the expenses that would be involved if the HOA Board decided they were not fulfilling these new requirements. 

On a related matter, it is also important to note that proposed Section 4(g) gives the Board the “right to promulgate and adopt additional Rules and Regulations affecting Leasing.” This is a lot of power to place in the hands of a Board.  For example, this new power would enable a future Board to bar homeowners from permitting non-family members to live in their homes; indeed, since the proposed Declaration change does not define what constitutes “a member of the Owner’s household,” there is an ambiguity as to who would have to be registered with the HOA.

This power could be even more draconian, since proposed Section 1, Article VI would give the Board the power to foreclose on homeowners who fail “to comply with the Terms of the Association’s Governing Documents.”  This would be in addition to attorney fees which mount up quickly when the Board moves against homeowners (now, only for non-payment of annual assessments). The addition of the new restrictions in the Package mean that homeowners (who, under the amendments, could easily be pressured to accede to any interpretation the Board might put on these restrictions. (See, also, the proposed Article V, Sections 8, 11, 12, 13, 14; and Article VI, Section 1).

Perhaps even more disturbing is the proposed language in Article VI, Section 1, which not only permits the HOA to bring legal action against a Homeowner for “failure to comply with the terms of the Association’s Governing Documents,” but permits such suits “by any other Owner.”  The last thing we need in our community is for individual members to be able to sue other members for alleged violations of increasingly complex and ambiguous rules.

In sum, the proposed leasing restrictions would radically change the relationship between the HOA and its members – and not for the better.  I have heard no good justifications for any of these leasing restrictions, restrictions which would not improve life in Cherrywood, and could make life worse for many people.

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS

  

The Case For Approving piece posits a series of fearful hypotheticals. For the reasons discussed below, the assertion that we need to vote for the all-or-nothing Declaration Amendments in order to avoid “doubling” the population density of Cherrywood is, in my view, unwarranted. The terms of the new County regulations, upon which the Case For relies, may be found at:

https://www2.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgportalapps/Press_Detail.aspx?Item_ID=23341&Dept=1

Proposed Section 5, Article IV would bar any “accessory apartments.”  Accessory apartments, attached to or within existing homes, have already been allowed for more than six years, must secure County building permits and follow Code building codes, and there is little, if any, evidence that they have created any problem in Cherrywood. There is no reason to believe that the removal of the current limit on distances between homes that have accessory apartments would result in a proliferation of such apartments – particularly since there is no evidence that there are very many of them anywhere in Cherrywood. The proposed County regulations do not change the existing parking rules for ADUs more than a mile from a Metro Stop, the Purple Line, or a MARC Station (“three off-street spaces are still required”).   On the other hand, prohibiting them could great hardships for some families.

Enactment of Section 5 would mean, for example, that we could not convert our basements into living quarters with kitchens, bathrooms, and separate entrances for our parents, grandparents, or adult children. Do we really want to prohibit homeowners from adjusting to economic hardship by bringing in family members, or another trusted family, into their homes in this manner? During the Great Depression, my grandmother was able to keep her family together and stay in her home after my grandfather’s untimely death because she was able to convert part of her house into a separate apartment, which she rented to her sister’s family and later to another family. We should not prevent families who may fall on rough times from saving their homes, or from helping their loved ones. There is no reason to think that there would be a huge proliferation in the number of families who might need to take this route.

As for “backyard houses”, it is true that the Council proposal would allow detached ADUs on lots smaller than one acre. But there are significant zoning and building regulations that would have to be complied with.[1] And building such an ADU would be quite expensive – probably at least six figures for a house built on site and perhaps half that for a prefabricated house.  Thus, while detached ADUs will be permitted by the County, the process and the construction would be quite expensive, and that factor alone suggests that few homeowners will decide to build such houses.  

Nor, as the Case For piece suggests, is there a real “risk that people will begin to buy homes in Cherrywood with the plan to build an ADU.”  This fear is speculative in the extreme.  No one can scoop up properties, since sellers have to agree to sell.  And the economic benefits to such imagined speculators are quite a reach.  A prudent investor would not take such a risk.  

So the idea that suddenly the number of single-family houses in Cherrywood would explode is, in my view, mistaken.

In any event, on the off-chance that we would begin to see a proliferation of ADUs, there would be plenty of time for the HOA to enact a free-standing Declaration amendment to deal with it.  The Case For piece states that “collecting signatures” for such an amendment “is an extremely tedious process,” citing the failure to secure enough signatures for the Pond Transfer. But this failure is, in my view, more attributable to the lumping together the laundry list of Declaration proposals into a single all-or-nothing Package at the same time the Pond Transfer proposal was made than any other factor, causing many people to simply turn off from, or to ignore, the whole process.  If a strong, clear case can be made of a clear and present danger – not a speculative fear – and the proposal does not include a number of unrelated, problematic changes, then the membership is far more likely to pay attention.

This brings us back to the point that the entire Package of Declaration changes is to be voted on “all or nothing.”  If the community believes that there should be restrictions on ADUs, such restrictions could be presented by the HOA Board for a free-standing vote, after discussion with the community as to the kinds of restrictions members might deem appropriate.  It is unfortunate that the HOA Board has declined to offer such an option.  But prohibiting accessory apartments in existing homes (something that has been permitted for more than six years and has not had demonstrable deleterious impacts), invading people’s privacy, making many homeowners’ lives potentially more difficult through the leasing restrictions (both clear and ambiguous), and transforming the HOA into a form of sub-government, are too high a price to pay for this other restriction, the need for which is speculative in the extreme.

SUMMARY

Fewer than 38% of Cherrywood households have voted for the Package.  People moved here, in part, because the HOA does not impose restrictions on individual freedom, and is not, in effect, a form of sub-government in Montgomery County.  So our foundational documents provide that any move to change that dynamic must be overwhelmingly supported. The role of the Board is presently limited to housekeeping matters, which are important, and have been well-carried out. The proposed Package does not address an actual problem in our community, and would radically change the relationship between the Board and the community.  For these reasons, I urge people to vote against the proposed Declaration Package.  

David Fishback, Secretary

Cherrywood HOA Board of Directors

fishbackhoa@gmail.com

---

[1]   The new zoning regulation mandates that “the size of the detached ADUs must be the smaller of 10 percent of the lot site, 50 percent of the footprint of the principal dwelling, or 1200 square feet. Existing rules limiting the construction of accessory structures apply, including height limits, maximum lot coverage requirements, and stormwater requirements. In addition, the greater rear and side setbacks currently for detached ADUs remain. ”