In most Fishers Homeowners Associations (HOAs) it takes a vote of at least 75% of the homeowners to make a change in the covenants or other rules. The Fishers City Council, at the regular monthly meeting Monday, took the first step toward changing that for new neighborhoods in the city.
“We are requesting that for any new HOA that this just be a simple majority vote in order to make (a) change, to make it a little bit easier for neighborhoods to amend their covenants and restrictions through the years,” Director Planning & Zoning Megan Vukusich told council members.
Mayor Scott Fadness emphasized the city would not implement such a rule retroactively, this proposed ordinance would only apply to new development. Councilor Pete Peterson emphasized any new city ordinance would require a 50% vote of homeowners, not 50% of the homeowners present for a meeting of the HOA. There were many comments about how HOA meetings in many neighborhoods are sparsely attended and a quorum is often not present in order to conduct business.
Vukusich added this rule would not apply to the new developments along Florida Road, but the city could ask the developers to include the 50% rule in their covenants.
The Council only needed one vote to pass the ordinance on first reading. The proposed measure now goes to the March 1st Plan Commission meeting for a public hearing. The ordinance will be up for a final vote at the March 20th council session.
This seems like a bad path to take. Changing the condidtions of a contract after a contract has been made should require the consent of all parties. 75% isn’t even high enough. To have the whole value of my house at the whim of 51% of my neighborhood is a massive financial exposure.
Keep in mind that HOAs are there to keep the value of lots and properties stable while a developer builds out a development. Their value drops quickly after that. How about making a move to sunset all HOAs after two decades?
What about existing HOA’s ?
As stated in the story, this applies only to new developments.
When, if ever, are they going to do something
with the existing HOA’s.
It sounded , originally, like they were considering
all HOA’s.
On one hand, our Indy HOA is paralyzed because the majority of the residents are not interested in participating in their own governance.
On the other hand, the 75% law is about the only protection the residents have left to stop a HOA board looking to off-load expenses onto residents by regulation changes.
I am asking only about limiting the number of rentals
in the HOA.
Can’t there be a reduction of the 75% ruling only in this regard ?
When there is only 60-70% in favor of the limitation because
some just don’t care, there is nothing we can do ?
They *may* care and just disagree with you. My HOA is going through this currently and there are quite a few empty nesters or soon to be empty nesters thinking that it might be nice to be able to rent out a bedroom/basement, but proposed rules would regulate/prohibit it.
We are trying to limit the number of rental houses.
Unbelievable how many residents don’t care enough
to even submit a proxy.
I understand that. What I’m saying is that they may *not* want to limit the number of rentals and they are not signing the proxy because if they did, you could use that to vote *to* limit rentals.