Skylights and attic fans are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, with approval depending on the unit’s “overall aesthetics” and the “overall appearance of the neighborhood.”
Every board has day-to-day responsibilities for running the association, and our reform board will handle those responsibilities too.
Where we will be different is in the changes and improvements we bring to the experience of living in Brighton Forest. We’ve listened to what neighbors want improved, and these are the focus areas and practical changes that will guide our work.
Transparency is the foundation of every other principle on this page. Homeowners cannot know whether rules are fair, enforcement is consistent, or concerns are being heard unless they can see how decisions are made, how each director votes and how the Association uses its authority and dues.
Board decisions about rules, enforcement, spending and appeals affect every homeowner. Yet homeowners cannot hold a board accountable when meeting records are missing or delayed, decisions are made outside regular meetings and votes are not recorded. “The board discussed it” is not the same as a vote, and a vote without a record is not accountability.
Without useful records and conflict disclosures, owners cannot tell who made a decision, why it was made or whether personal interests played a role.
The TownSq folders showed only four sets of minutes for 2025 and four for January through April 2026. Several were posted months after the meeting dates, leaving long gaps in the record available to owners.
Adopt written board-conduct and oversight policies so transparent, accountable governance is the rule rather than a matter of preference. Every director should be responsible for what the board does as a body.
A homeowner should be able to read the guidelines and know what to expect before spending time on a project.
Vague and subjective architectural rules leave too much room for personal opinions to determine what homeowners may do with their own property. They also make it difficult for the Architectural Review Committee to give consistent answers or for a homeowner to know what will be approved before investing time and money in a project.
Architectural standards should protect the neighborhood without turning personal opinions into an enforceable restriction. When the rules do not clearly say what matters, similar projects can receive different answers depending on who reviews them.
In the skylight and attic-fan example, the current wording never defines “overall aesthetics” or “overall appearance.” With no measurable criteria, the decision can turn on an individual reviewer’s personal bias and tastes, and two similar projects can receive different answers.
The proposed version still accounts for aesthetics by requiring a flush-mounted or low-profile installation that matches or complements the roof. It turns that concern into an objective standard the ARC can apply consistently without allowing personal preference to interfere with a homeowner’s right to use and improve their property.
Skylights and attic fans show how a subjective rule becomes a clear standard.
Skylights and attic fans are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, with approval depending on the unit’s “overall aesthetics” and the “overall appearance of the neighborhood.”
Skylights and attic fans will be approved when they are flush-mounted or low-profile and match or complement the roof color. Other designs may still be considered on application.
Keep legitimate protections for safety, drainage and impacts on neighbors, but state them clearly. Replace subjective language with objective standards that follow North Carolina law and apply equally to every property.
Homeowners should expect enforcement to focus on meaningful, ongoing problems, and follow published standards. The board should always attempt to work directly with homeowners via communication and mediation before spending dues on legal escalation.
Enforcement has drifted away from protecting the neighborhood from meaningful harm and toward searching for anything that can produce a violation letter. These are the kinds of examples neighbors have raised.
When an enforcement issue moves directly from a notice to legal counsel, the cost and stakes rise before anyone has tried to solve the underlying problem with the homeowner.
A soccer goal blows over in a storm, and the violation photo is taken while the storm is still happening.
A homeowner receives a demand to pressure wash a driveway even though no guideline defines when that is required.
Inspections treat conditions that may be only minutes or hours old as violations rather than using common sense.
Enforcement should focus on meaningful problems and apply standards a reasonable neighbor would recognize as fair. The board should give the management company clear written instructions and review how those instructions are being carried out. Direct conversation and informal resolution should come before counsel or litigation whenever possible.
A board should seek community input throughout the year, not just once at the annual meeting. Quarterly surveys should give every homeowner a regular voice, and directors should be willing to engage homeowners directly when questions or disputes arise.
A number of neighbors have independently described experiences with the board that left them feeling dismissed, intimidated or treated unfairly. When people feel they cannot raise a concern without being talked down to or pushed aside, that is not a personality issue. It is a governance problem.
When communication is routed only through the management company or attorneys, ordinary questions become unnecessarily formal and homeowners lose a meaningful voice in their own community’s governance.
A board’s choice of legal counsel and its instructions to that counsel also shape how disagreements are handled. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and routine questions can become costly legal disputes before dialogue or mediation has been attempted.
A “Foreclosure Factory” assembly-line approach to liens and foreclosure.
The same condition is a violation for one neighbor and acceptable for another.
No notice, recorded vote or useful account of what was decided.
Every decision is traceable, including who voted and why.
Questions are answered directly and concerns receive a fair hearing.
Advice centered on lawful governance, fair process and resolution.
Serving on the board should be us working for us, not us versus them. Directors are stewards of the community’s rules and dues and should engage directly and respectfully with the people they serve. Problems should be discussed with homeowners before the board reaches for litigation. Legal action should be a last resort after reasonable efforts to resolve a meaningful problem have failed.
Electing a reform board is only the beginning. The board will still handle the everyday responsibilities homeowners expect, including budgets, maintenance, vendors, architectural applications, enforcement, and community operations. What changes is that, for the first time, Brighton Forest residents will have a meaningful voice and a direct say in how their HOA is run.
The reform candidates have already done much of the groundwork. We have drafted policies and guideline changes that can move through open review, homeowner feedback, board votes, and published implementation.
Homeowners will be able to see what is being proposed, provide input before decisions are made, and track whether the board keeps its commitments.