No. Choosing to live in an HOA means agreeing to follow valid, enforceable covenants. It does not mean surrendering rights protected by state law, and private HOA rules do not take priority over statutes or court decisions.
No. Valid covenants and architectural standards should be enforced fairly and consistently. They must also comply with state and federal law.
N.C.G.S. § 22B-20 generally makes restrictions that prohibit, or effectively prohibit, residential solar collectors void and unenforceable. In Belmont Association v. Farwig, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that an ARC could not use general aesthetic authority to prohibit a street-facing installation when the recorded declaration did not expressly restrict solar panels.
Some homeowners may not like the appearance of street-facing panels, and they are entitled to that opinion. But a personal aesthetic preference does not change North Carolina law. The guideline says: “Whenever possible, collectors should be placed on the rear of the home or on the side that has the least public exposure.”
“Whenever possible” acknowledges that preferred placement will not always be possible, and “should” expresses a preference rather than an absolute requirement.
More importantly, the ARC guidelines cannot be applied in a way that effectively prohibits solar panels. In Belmont Association v. Farwig, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that an HOA cannot use general architectural authority to prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting solar panels by restricting their reasonable use.
The ARC did not identify any configuration it would approve. Its denial stated that all the panels would be fully visible from the road, but the submitted plans showed that 15 of the 36 panels would not face the road. We also provided an analysis showing that relocating the system to the rear would reduce its expected energy production by 59%.
We tried to work with the board, but it refused to communicate with us or our attorney about the legal issues.
Timing also mattered. The federal solar tax credit was expiring at the end of 2025, and Duke Energy’s battery rebate program had limited capacity. We came to believe the board was ignoring us in the hope that we would lose access to those incentives and give up.
North Carolina law protects our right to install and reasonably use solar panels, and our recorded covenants contain no solar restriction. We do not need the board’s permission to exercise a right it has no lawful authority to deny.
We were reminded of Col. Van T. Barfoot’s flagpole dispute. His Virginia HOA told him to remove his flagpole and threatened legal action when he refused. The flagpole dispute involved different laws, but the choice resonates: accept an HOA’s denial as the final word, or stand up for a right you believe the law protects.
Those are unrelated issues governed by separate restrictions. Unlike the reasonable use of residential solar, keeping an inoperable vehicle in a front yard or a boat trailer in a driveway is not protected by any comparable North Carolina statute. Bringing the solar guidelines into compliance with state law does not erase valid covenants or prevent the HOA from enforcing lawful standards concerning vehicles, parking, or property maintenance.
We think more highly of our neighbors than that. Brighton Forest homeowners care about their homes and take pride in the appearance of our community. We do not believe subjective enforcement of vague and unlawful rules is the only thing standing between this neighborhood and neglected properties or junk-filled yards. Following state law is not abandoning community standards. It is ensuring those standards are clear, lawful, and applied with respect for homeowners.
You are entitled to dislike solar panels. But personal preference does not justify using HOA power, homeowner dues, fines, liens, or foreclosure to deny a neighbor a right protected by law.
That power imbalance is common in HOA disputes. An association can deny a homeowner’s rights knowing that most people cannot afford the time or money required to challenge it in court. Without homeowner pushback, unlawful enforcement can continue without accountability.
If no one ever stood up for their rights when those rights were being denied, no one would have any rights in practice. Rights matter most when someone else would prefer that you not exercise them.
Our experience has shown us how important it is to adopt clear, lawful guidelines and governance policies that lead homeowners and HOAs toward mutual resolution rather than expensive litigation.
Right now, we do not even know which current board members intend to run for election. Without roll-call votes or public statements, residents cannot tell who supported which decisions or where individual directors stand. We are not assuming every current director shares the same views, but the board’s lack of transparency leaves homeowners no way to know otherwise.
We did not set out to replace the entire board, but enough neighbors were inspired by the story and updates that more and more kept stepping forward to be part of this opportunity. We are supporting candidates for every seat up for election because they have publicly committed to clearer rules and transparent governance. Going forward, board votes and positions should be visible so homeowners can evaluate each director individually and make informed decisions about whom to reelect. Homeowners should not have to guess where their board stands at the ballot box.
Yes, you can choose individual candidates. If you want to support the reform effort, you need to vote for candidates committed to making the changes. That is why we encourage you to vote for the entire reform team.
The best way to do that is to complete the Association’s proxy form, appoint Samuel Scott Farwell as the designated proxy holder, and return it following the instructions on the form.
Yes. The goal is to enforce valid restrictions fairly and consistently while correcting architectural guidelines that are vague or conflict with governing law.
Our proposed ARC changes identify the language we believe should be revised and explain the proposed replacement for each provision. The objective is to give homeowners clearer expectations and reduce subjective, case-by-case decisions.
A reform-minded board would also communicate openly with homeowners and exhaust every reasonable option to resolve a dispute before considering litigation. Legal action would be a last resort. We would not rely on counsel that treats lawsuits, liens, or foreclosure as routine enforcement tools.
The available evidence says the opposite. A 2024 peer-reviewed study found that the remaining value of homeowner-owned solar systems was roughly fully reflected in home sale prices. A 2025 analysis comparing more than 400 recent solar and non-solar home sales found that solar homes sold for 6.9% more on average, about $29,000 for a median-valued home.
Local market data likewise show no sign that nearby homes have become harder to sell. A shared MLS report contained 17 closed Brighton Forest listings. Their sale prices ranged from $630,000 to $905,000, with a median of $730,000. The median time on market was eight days.
All four Oakley Woods Lane sales occurred after our panels were installed. They ranged from $630,000 to $735,000 and averaged only 5.25 days on market. A home in our cul-de-sac recently sold before even hitting the market.
We tried to resolve the issue without litigation. We asked the board to update the ARC guidelines to reflect North Carolina law and provided example language adopted by another community following the Belmont decision. That request was closed without a change, and the board ignored further attempts to engage with us about the legal issues or updating the guidelines.
Because the disputed language is in the ARC guidelines rather than an express solar restriction in the recorded covenants, the bylaws assign responsibility for the guidelines to the board. The decision not to update the guidelines to align with state law, and instead to pursue the dispute through fines, a lien, and foreclosure, rests solely with the board.
Through emails and other information obtained during the course of this dispute, we now know that the current HOA president has a personal animus toward solar panels. The evidence shows that he was not going to consider amending the architectural guidelines to align with state law under any circumstances.
Our lawsuit grew from a specific dispute with the HOA. We do not have reliable information about how much litigation the Association has brought against homeowners so we will not speculate.
The broader reform effort developed after other residents shared concerns about unclear rules, inconsistent enforcement, and limited transparency. Our proposals address those community-wide issues, regardless of the outcome of our individual dispute.
We do not know how much the HOA has spent on this dispute or what its attorneys expect the total cost to be. Those are reasonable questions for the current board, including whether the expenses are being paid by the Association, its insurer, or both.
On our side, we waited until fines, collection efforts, and legal threats against our home made litigation unavoidable. We initially paid approximately $1,400 in fines while hoping the matter would end. Weeks later, the HOA assessed nearly $6,000 in additional charges and began pursuing collection. We filed suit only after the HOA’s attorneys threatened a lien and foreclosure. The HOA has since recorded a lien against our home and requested foreclosure. We have also incurred several thousand dollars in legal fees.
It is difficult to describe an ongoing lawsuit as “worth it.” We did not begin this process looking for a legal fight, and we filed only after fines, collection efforts, and legal threats against our home made further inaction untenable. The HOA has since recorded a lien against our home and requested foreclosure, so the threat to our home is not hypothetical.
We hope the outcome protects our family’s rights and leads to clearer, lawful standards that reduce the chance of another Brighton Forest homeowner facing the same situation.
← Back to home