Skip to content
The Archive of The Carrboro Citizen
Menu
  • Home
  • News
  • Community
  • Schools
  • Business
  • Opinion
  • Obituaries
  • Sports
  • Mill
  • Flora
  • Print Archive
  • About
Menu

Residents oppose limits on covenants

Posted on February 19, 2009February 19, 2009 by Staff

By Susan Dickson
Staff Writer

Several residents spoke out at a public hearing on Tuesday against a proposed Carrboro town charter amendment that would prohibit deed restrictions or covenants that limit the use of green or sustainability features on residential properties.

The Carrboro Board of Aldermen voted 5-2 to introduce the proposed amendment to the General Assembly, with board members Randee Haven-O’Donnell and Joal Hall Broun dissenting. If the proposal is approved by the General Assembly, the board could later enact an ordinance.

According to Mayor Mark Chilton, the matter was brought to the board’s attention by a resident who wanted to put a clothesline in his backyard, but was unable to do so because his neighborhood’s homeowners’ association prohibited it.

“In some cases, some of the restrictions that were adopted five and 10 and 20 years ago may not really have taken into consideration the situation that we find ourselves in as a nation and a planet,” Chilton said.

However, several residents said they felt the ordinance would unfairly limit the covenants of homeowners’ associations.

“I have a real problem with the town just declaring that they’re void and unenforceable and that the agreements that I bought my house under just get tossed out the window,” said Richard Anstine. “The Town of Carrboro is trying to go way over the top in taking away rights that were certainly in place when I bought my property.”

Anstine is involved with his homeowners’ association and is a licensed real estate broker.

“I don’t think anybody’s against saving the environment and being green. I think we just need to do it in a manner that is not just blatantly striking down amendment rights of covenants,” he said.

Robert Kirschner, a resident of Carrboro and a board member of his homeowners’ association, said he felt disenfranchised by the proposed amendment.

“I think what is presented here really demonizes homeowners’ associations,” he said, adding that communities have a right to govern themselves.

Board members said the amendment, if approved by the General Assembly, and later the board of aldermen, would not apply to condominiums and would not allow residents to put sustainable features in places where they wouldn’t otherwise have the right to place something.

The board also voted 7-0 to introduce to the General Assembly a proposed charter amendment that would add sexual orientation, gender identification and gender expression to the list of bases upon which the board may prohibit housing discrimination.

The second proposed amendment drew no public comment.

“I just think it’s really interesting and really neat that of these two amendments, the one that brought people out of the woodwork and the one that had the most controversy had to do with clotheslines and not orientation,” board member Jackie Gist said. “I think that really says something about how we’ve evolved as a community over the last 20 years.”

3 thoughts on “Residents oppose limits on covenants”

  1. Fred Black says:
    February 19, 2009 at 11:43 am

    It is not accurate to say that the resident “was unable to do so because his neighborhood’s homeowners’ association prohibited it.” The covenants prohibit it and the HOA has the legal responsibility to uphold them.

    The distinction matters.

  2. Sophie King-Lowe says:
    February 19, 2009 at 2:45 pm

    I hope this passes, then I can put a 1,000 gallon rain barrel in my front yard according to how the ordinance is worded.

    And, install a huge solar collector, too!

    It is truly amazing (and in some ways depressing) how a complaint about a clothesline can blossom into something so broad and unwanted.

    Shame on the BOA.

  3. Jen says:
    February 22, 2009 at 3:39 pm

    I like that people are challenging HOAs. They are not governmental organizations, and cost homeowners lots of money, with no evidence that they increase a home’s value. They represent an extra tax, if you will, to manage what would otherwise be town issues- such as landscaping and useless signage. They are a waste of money and need to be abolished.

Comments are closed.

Web Archive

© 2025 The Archive of The Carrboro Citizen | Powered by Minimalist Blog WordPress Theme