Post by James Kozlik on Apr 22, 2016 13:48:49 GMT -7
April 21, 2016
To: Charlotte Mizzi, President
Glastonbury Landowners Association
PO Box 312
Emigrant, MT 59027
From: James Kozlik
P.O. Box 1075
Emigrant, MT 59027
Dear Charlotte,
It has been brought to my attention that there are a few landowners who are requesting to be withdrawn from the Glastonbury Landowner Association as per our covenants.
I have been a strong advocate for a Road Maintenance Association and letting the county regulations and minor sub division covenants have jurisdiction over the tracts of land known as Glastonbury.
I feel my property rights are compromised when a board of directors, a management group, corporation or landowners who are not part of my minor sub division controls the decision-making.
It has been my experience as a landowner and builder doing business in other HOA subdivisions, that if members of an HOA are in disagreement, it is much harder to sell the real estate. This devalues my investment. It is my concern.
The GLA has been burdened with legal battles and landowner disagreements for several years now. I see on Tim Brockett’s forum and the GLFPC website that several people are requesting withdrawal from the association. If the “Association” is the landowners then any decision concerning landowner withdrawals should be voted on by the majority vote of landowners.
If it is true that the board of directors voted to deny any request of landowner withdrawal without a landowner vote concerning this issue, the GLA may have other legal disputes to contend with. (At least that’s what I am reading into the requests I have seen.)
As a shareholder of the GLA Corporation, I would like the Board of Directors of the Glastonbury Landowners Association to consider membership participation concerning this predicament.
It is my opinion that since we (GLA) control the road easements, we can set a fee for road use to landowners that are not part of the “association”. We do have at least one neighboring landowner (Tom Berry) that pays a yearly road assessment to use our easements.
Personally, I’d rather have all of my assessment paid towards roads. That is what maintains good land value. Banks like Road Maintenance Associations too! An HOA in disarray is not a healthy situation.
The other observation I want to share concerning HOA’s is the fact that there will always be discontents’ trying to take over thinking their way is better. The result is stricter covenants, higher fees, and other people not minding their own business! More law suites and disagreements ensue and not so friendly neighbors.
Withdrawing from the “Association” and paying road use fees doesn’t seem like a bad idea. Sure is a neutral place to co-exist. Think about it, we’d only have road issues to debate about. Hummmm…. Even though the board voted against letting landowner withdrawals from the “Association” has it considered a plan “B” in case the “withdrawals” hire a lawyer and win a law suite! Will the “Association” be able to close the private roads to non association members? Or does the prescriptive easement law prevail? What about fees? Will “withdrawal” fees be less than or same as the “Association” assessments? Will there be a special escrow account set up so road use fees are used strictly for road maintenance?
Gosh, maybe we need to have a special landowner meeting before next months board meeting to discuss this situation. Of course board members need to come. And of course our comments will be only about this issue! And all participants will have a “nothing personal attitude”.
Sincerely, your friendly, neutral, happy, smiling neighbor from the Newhouse minor subdivision NG-43-E,
James Kozlik
CC: glastonbury.freeforums.net/thread/251/declaration-independence-gla-board
To: Charlotte Mizzi, President
Glastonbury Landowners Association
PO Box 312
Emigrant, MT 59027
From: James Kozlik
P.O. Box 1075
Emigrant, MT 59027
Dear Charlotte,
It has been brought to my attention that there are a few landowners who are requesting to be withdrawn from the Glastonbury Landowner Association as per our covenants.
I have been a strong advocate for a Road Maintenance Association and letting the county regulations and minor sub division covenants have jurisdiction over the tracts of land known as Glastonbury.
I feel my property rights are compromised when a board of directors, a management group, corporation or landowners who are not part of my minor sub division controls the decision-making.
It has been my experience as a landowner and builder doing business in other HOA subdivisions, that if members of an HOA are in disagreement, it is much harder to sell the real estate. This devalues my investment. It is my concern.
The GLA has been burdened with legal battles and landowner disagreements for several years now. I see on Tim Brockett’s forum and the GLFPC website that several people are requesting withdrawal from the association. If the “Association” is the landowners then any decision concerning landowner withdrawals should be voted on by the majority vote of landowners.
If it is true that the board of directors voted to deny any request of landowner withdrawal without a landowner vote concerning this issue, the GLA may have other legal disputes to contend with. (At least that’s what I am reading into the requests I have seen.)
As a shareholder of the GLA Corporation, I would like the Board of Directors of the Glastonbury Landowners Association to consider membership participation concerning this predicament.
It is my opinion that since we (GLA) control the road easements, we can set a fee for road use to landowners that are not part of the “association”. We do have at least one neighboring landowner (Tom Berry) that pays a yearly road assessment to use our easements.
Personally, I’d rather have all of my assessment paid towards roads. That is what maintains good land value. Banks like Road Maintenance Associations too! An HOA in disarray is not a healthy situation.
The other observation I want to share concerning HOA’s is the fact that there will always be discontents’ trying to take over thinking their way is better. The result is stricter covenants, higher fees, and other people not minding their own business! More law suites and disagreements ensue and not so friendly neighbors.
Withdrawing from the “Association” and paying road use fees doesn’t seem like a bad idea. Sure is a neutral place to co-exist. Think about it, we’d only have road issues to debate about. Hummmm…. Even though the board voted against letting landowner withdrawals from the “Association” has it considered a plan “B” in case the “withdrawals” hire a lawyer and win a law suite! Will the “Association” be able to close the private roads to non association members? Or does the prescriptive easement law prevail? What about fees? Will “withdrawal” fees be less than or same as the “Association” assessments? Will there be a special escrow account set up so road use fees are used strictly for road maintenance?
Gosh, maybe we need to have a special landowner meeting before next months board meeting to discuss this situation. Of course board members need to come. And of course our comments will be only about this issue! And all participants will have a “nothing personal attitude”.
Sincerely, your friendly, neutral, happy, smiling neighbor from the Newhouse minor subdivision NG-43-E,
James Kozlik
CC: glastonbury.freeforums.net/thread/251/declaration-independence-gla-board