Architectural Guidelines

PNRA surveys residents regarding architectural guidelines

Residents of portions of the Glastonbury and Hamptons Communities belong to the Parkland Neighbourhood Residents Association, which exists to maintain a community environment that has a consistently high aesthetic appeal throughout; and to attend to the maintenance and enhancement of the Parkland area amenities.

The Parkland HoA area include specified architectural controls which stipulate exterior finishes such as fencing and roofs. When the subdivision developer transferred control of the association to the association’s volunteer board of directors in 2015, the board also assumed enforcement of the architectural guidelines.

To understand the extent of compliance with the guidelines, the board undertook a visual inspection in summer 2015 that indicated a number of properties were found to be non-compliant with the guidelines, in varying degrees. Following the fall 2015 Annual General Meeting of the association where residents in attendance indicated a varying level of support for the architectural guidelines depending on the item, the volunteer board committed to the development of an all-resident vote to guide the direction of the architectural guidelines on a go-forward basis.

In preparation for this survey of residents, the association consulted with legal expertise through late 2015 and early 2016 that suggested to evolve the architectural guidelines would unfortunately not be a simple or straightforward process. In fact, the process could take up to five years with no guarantee of success and could cost the association hundreds of thousands of dollars. The association also received a legal opinion that it has an obligation to continue to enforce the guidelines, unless a process were to be pursued to drop the guidelines completely—which would also be a lengthy and expensive process.

The resident survey was conducted in mid-2016 through July and August with a package mailed to all 2,500 residences—and results indicate that residents clearly favour the status quo. The survey received a total of 969 responses, and by more than a two-to-one margin, Parkland residents who responded to the survey indicated a strong majority preference for the association to continue with the current architectural guidelines, according to the established process of enforcement which includes issuing notices to those property owners who are offside with the guidelines. This option was preferred over undertaking a process to attempt to evolve the guidelines or undertaking a process to attempt to drop the guidelines.

Survey results

1. How important are the Architectural Control Guidelines to you?

   A. Not important, I would be fine without Guidelines in place. 149 votes

   B. Somewhat important, there needs to be some Guidelines in place. 360 votes

   C. Very important, it is a major reason for owning in Parkland. 225 votes

   
   

2. The PNRA has three potential directions related to the Architectural Control Guidelines.

A. Undertake a process to attempt to remove the Architectural Guidelines.

B. Continue with the status quo by enforcing the current Architectural Guidelines.

C. Undertake a process to formally change the Guidelines.

The preference for each of these three directions was as follows:

PREF 1 A=164 B=565 votes C=235

PREF 2 A=225 B=144 C=400

PREF 3 A=384 B=204 C=150

The association announced the results of the survey through an article in the Glastonbury Gazette newspaper distributed to all residences in early September 2016 then held an open house on September 7, 2016 to provide an opportunity for further discussion regarding the guidelines.

Given this direction from residents, the association will continue to maintain the current architectural guidelines. The association will set a prudent small budget annually to address the guidelines, while continuing to focus most of the association’s resources on infrastructure maintenance and enhancements. In the interest of ensuring the guidelines continue to serve the community, the association has also committed to conducting a resident survey every five years on a go-forward basis to enable future consideration toward evolving the guidelines as warranted.

Legal Opinion on changing the Architectural Guidelines.

What do I do if I am non-compliant with the guidelines? Given the results of the above, the guidelines must still be followed and will be enforced by the association. The Board has no authority to change the guidelines (at this time) nor do we have the authority to forgive any non-compliant issues. Please see the Non-Compliant Assistance section for further information.

Recent Legal Precedence Established in 2019

In 2019, the Blackburne Creek Homeowners’ Association (HOA) has been involved in litigation with three of our members who chose to replace their roofs with non-wood materials in 2013. A three-day trial was held in April of this year, with a written judgment delivered on August 8, 2019 by the Honourable Mr. Justice Michael Kraus of the Court of Queen’s Bench.

In his decision, Justice Kraus ruled that the Design Guidelines in the Restrictive Covenant are not ambiguous, that the roofing materials must be made of wood, and there cannot be a free use of the land with respect to roofing materials. He also ruled that the HOA “acted promptly and decisively with respect to the defendants in July 2013”, thereby reinforcing the authority of the HOA to enforce the Covenants as per our founding and operating documents.

The HOA had not asked for pecuniary damages (other than costs) but had asked for a mandatory injunction which Justice Kraus granted. 

The decision makes it clear that the HOA is tasked with enforcing those covenants. Neighbourhoods such as ours with restrictive covenants registered on title were developed for, and marketed to people who wanted to live in a neighborhood that would have certain features of quality and consistency. This decision upholds those aims and I am sure will be a guiding case for other neighborhoods for years to come.