Proposed revisions for community review. Bracketed values still need to be set.
Overview
- Know what is expected. Clearer standards cover landscaping, fences, decks, storage buildings, lighting and other exterior changes. Comparable projects must be treated consistently unless a written decision explains a specific site difference.
- Get an explanation, not just a denial. Decisions must identify the requirements a project does not meet, explain why, and state what changes would make it approvable. Complete applications receive a written decision within 60 calendar days.
- Protect reasonable property use. The proposal recognizes solar and antenna protections, including street-facing solar placement where needed for effective solar access. It also distinguishes in-kind repairs from rebuilds that change a structure's footprint, height or use.
- Give neighbors a voice without a personal veto. Relevant concerns about drainage, setbacks and other written standards must be addressed. Personal taste alone is not grounds for denial.
- Provide a fair appeal. Homeowners may appeal a denial or conditional approval, receive a written response, and request to present their case in person. Board members who participated in the original decision do not vote on the appeal.
Compare the current and proposed wording
A. Review process & enforcement (8 changes)
A. Review process & enforcement 8 changes
The structural fixes. Until these change, tightening individual standards has limited effect, because the document currently authorizes inconsistency in writing.
The root cause of inconsistency complaints: the document states that identical projects may be decided differently and that no prior approval constrains the committee.
The ARC must communicate a decision but never has to say why or cite the rule a project violated. Without reasons, denials cannot be meaningfully appealed and inconsistency stays invisible.
"Up to 60 days" sets a ceiling with no duty to actually decide, and no notice if the application is incomplete.
"Reconstruction" is undefined, so ordinary repair of a previously approved structure can be forced to meet newer, stricter rules.
"Detract from the overall appearance and peace of the neighborhood" can be applied to almost anything. The 90-day definition that follows it is exactly the kind of objective standard the rest of the document needs.
No fine amount, no hearing description, and no mention of the protections every NC homeowner already has by statute.
The entire current appeals process is two sentences: no deadline to appeal, no deadline to rule, no independent decision-maker, no right to be heard.
The form requires neighbor notification and an objection window but never says what an objection does, so it can decide one application and be ignored on the next.
B. Landscaping & yard (12 changes)
B. Landscaping & yard 12 changes
Section III of the Guidelines. The enumerated requirements (edging, mulching, setbacks) are already objective and stay as written. These edits target the subjective standards layered on top of them.
"But not be limited to" means a homeowner can never know whether a project needs approval, and the ARC can later declare nearly any change "major."
Comparing every lot to professionally maintained entrance landscaping is a moving, subjective, unusually high bar. The objective checklist that follows (items 1–7) is sufficient on its own.
"Clean look" is whatever the inspector thinks it is, and the naturalized-theme sentence is grammatically ambiguous about what must be trimmed.
"Significantly" and "potentially will" are both undefined. Almost any change potentially affects a view. This protects neither the applicant nor the neighbor.
The section already requires an arborist's report: an objective, expert standard. The subjective "beauty" exception can override it.
Keeps review mandatory and does not expand the right to remove trees. It replaces the subjective exception with the expert standard the section already uses.
"Temporary" has no length and "when construction is complete" has no removal deadline.
Flags and political signs: objective terms, statutory floor
III.B, Signs items 4 & Flags (pp. 4–5) Law"Offensive" and "large" are undefined, and the political-sign window must respect the statutory minimum.
"Properly maintained" and "appropriate screening" leave both standards entirely to the reviewer.
"Every effort," "adversely affect," and "deemed to infringe" are subjective, and the text never says who decides.
"Consideration will be given" appears twice with no criteria for what tips the consideration either way.
"Suitable outdoor lumber" is undefined, and the "Community color palette/scheme" is cited as binding throughout the document but never defined or attached anywhere.
"Does not distract from the overall appearance of the neighborhood" is another aesthetic catch-all.
C. Structures (9 changes)
C. Structures 9 changes
Section IV. The pattern repeated below: replace "case-by-case" and "consideration will be given" with a default approval subject to stated, checkable conditions.
"Consistent with the original design" duplicates (vaguely) what items 7 and 8 already require objectively.
"Case-by-case basis depending on the lot's location" and "appears to be too close to an adjacent neighbor" are unverifiable; the 8-foot setback in the same section already answers the proximity question.
"Case-by-case" with "overall aesthetics" as the only guidance is, functionally, no standard at all.
Four vague standards in one section: "compatible with the general scheme," "consideration… to the need of landscaping," "case-by-case" location, and view obstruction "considered" with no criteria.
"Unsightly conditions" on adjoining land is in the eye of the beholder; "compatible with the general scheme" is undefined. The rest of the fence section is already commendably objective.
"Natural materials," "earth tone colors, blending with natural surroundings," and "when possible… out of view of any street" are all judgment calls.
The named materials are reviewed "case-by-case" with no criteria, and "immediately" is an unrealistic repair deadline no one can enforce evenly.
"A reasonable period of time" is undefined here even though the document defines it as 90 days elsewhere.
"Case-by-case," an undefined "beautification plan," and "should be immediate" give the reviewer three open-ended levers.
D. General standards & legal compliance (5 changes)
D. General standards & legal compliance 5 changes
Section V plus the two provisions where current text likely conflicts with state or federal law. Legal-conformance edits do not need a covenant amendment. Superior law already overrides conflicting rules, and the Guidelines are simply being corrected to match.
"Temporary" has no length, so the same request can get a week for one resident and a season for another.
The binding "Community color palette/scheme" does not exist as a document, and "Bright colors (pastels, pink, etc.)" is self-contradictory (pastels are by definition muted), and the "etc." makes the prohibited set unknowable.
"Whichever is least conspicuous" is a judgment call, and "case-by-case" review of other animal houses invites unequal treatment of identical structures.
"As inconspicuously as possible," "least public exposure," and "may require completely encasing the collectors" can each reduce output or block a viable installation, which state law prohibits.
The 36" approval threshold is below the federal one-meter line, and the mandatory screening and roof-placement rules are preempted wherever they impair installation or signal reception.
Full proposed guidelines
Comment on this proposal
Send questions or suggested changes by email.
Share your feedback