Proposed Amendment Info

Updated February 23, 2024

Additional information on the arguments for and against the Proposed Amendments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Copenhaver Board:

Additional Information and Clarifications:

During the annual meeting most of the focus was on ADUs, particularly internal ADUs, and partial home rentals (i.e., single rooms and basements). Montgomery County permits internal ADUs subject to some regulation and a registration process unless a neighborhood's covenants expressly prohibit them. With regard to room rentals, Montgomery County does not require a rental facility license and has very limited regulations which opens the door for outside investors to create unregulated rooming houses.

In the last two months the Board has considered all feedback received both during and after the annual meeting. Since the concerns about each activity are distinct, and the County's regulation of each activity differs, the Board has decided to split the topics into four distinct issues to be voted on separately.

The Board is committed to ensuring that Copenhaver residents have the information needed to make an informed decision. To that end, during the annual meeting the Board promised to distribute a letter written by Hillary Gebler that summarizes many of the points raised in opposition to certain aspects of the Proposed Amendments. The text of that letter is included below.

The Board is concerned that certain neighbors opposed to aspects of the Proposed Amendments have circulated emails to select individuals in the neighborhood which contain inaccurate statements. Below is a summary of some issues that have been misrepresented in email correspondence:

Other issues raised by neighbors opposed to the Proposed Amendments include the impact on property rights and the right to privacy within the walls of one's home. The Board is not concerned with what goes on inside someone's home, so long as that activity does not impact other neighbors and their enjoyment/value of their own property.

Unfortunately, when there is a conflict between neighbors on any topic, the first reaction of many residents is to call the Board to rectify the situation rather than engaging in a polite dialogue with their neighbor. With these Proposed Amendments, the Board is merely trying to set the ground rules on the use of Copenhaver homes after Montgomery County's zoning changes, to prevent Copenhaver from moving away from being the single-family neighborhood it has been for more than 50 years. Without the Proposed Amendments, the Board strongly believes that conflicts between neighbors will be unavoidable. If your neighbor suddenly begins renting their house as a weekly Airbnb, or an investor creates a rooming house occupied by several unrelated families with multiple cars, there will be nothing the Board can do to stop it without changes to our covenants.

This is a Neighborhood Decision: The Board has engaged an outside homeowners' association lawyer to advise on what is common in other communities and to assist with drafting the Proposed Amendments. The Proposed Amendments comply with Montgomery County ordinances and the Board is following the change process that is provided in Copenhaver's bylaws. Nothing in the Copenhaver bylaws prevents the Proposed Amendments. Our lawyer is currently assisting many other local neighborhoods with the same issues and he advises that the Proposed Amendments concerning an internal ADU and room rentals are less restrictive than the usual blanket prohibitions.

The fundamental question that the Board keeps coming back to is what type of neighborhood do we want to be in the future? While some of the Proposed Amendments may not directly affect the neighborhood today, the Board believes that unless the covenants are changed to include some reasonable restrictions, short term Airbnb rentals, internal and external ADUs, and room rentals are likely to proliferate and change the character of the neighborhood.

Throughout the process the Board has carefully considered all the comments and concerns it has received and has reformulated the wording of the Proposed Amendments several times in response. Not surprisingly, not all homeowners agree on the Proposed Amendments. Despite the statements to the contrary during the annual meeting and in emails circulated among neighbors that oppose the Proposed Amendments, the Board is not trying to create animosity among neighbors, but rather to prevent future conflict.

Because there has been more opposition to certain Proposed Amendments than to others, each stands on its own. This means that some, all, or none of the Proposed Amendments may be approved by the neighborhood. At the end of the day, this is a neighborhood decision, not a unilateral Board decision. Sixty percent of the homeowners in Copenhaver (one vote per household) must agree on each Proposed Amendment for that amendment to pass.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REMARKS TO CHC REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDENTS

Dec. 12, 2023

Good evening:

My name is Hillary Gebler. My husband Tom and I reside at 8901 Wooden Bridge Road, where we have lived for close to 24 years and raised two children. I am here to express our opposition to paragraph 3 of the proposed amendments to Article VIII, Section 2 of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. Section 3, which would prohibit a homeowner from renting what is defined as an Internal Accessory Dwelling Unit to anyone. This provision unjustifiably interferes with the private use and enjoyment of our homes and is not supported by the assertion that such rentals are likely to "change the character of the neighborhood."

First, there are numerous homes in the neighborhood that are being rented, including to families of various sizes. To my knowledge there is no restriction on this - nor do I believe there should be. However, it seems to me that allowing rental of a portion of an owner-occupied home is no more a risk of "changing the character of the neighborhood" than allowing rental of an entire home where the owner is absent.

Second, as we know, Copenhaver homes were originally built to house large families, including 5-6 bedrooms to accommodate raising many children. Today, the average family is much smaller, more typically 2 children. And many of our homes are occupied by empty nesters, such as me and Tom. Thus, prohibiting rental of a portion of our homes to a single person, a couple, or a Parent and child, cannot be justified on the grounds that an increase in total number of home occupants will change the character of the neighborhood.

Third, to the extent there is a concern that such internal accessory dwelling units will be rented to large families or large unrelated groups of individuals, Montgomery County laws and regulations prevent this. The laws and regulations require all accessory dwelling units, including conversions of internal spaces, to be inspected and permitted, and there are occupancy limits based on square footage that are enforced as part of the permitting process. Therefore, this concern about overcrowding is unjustified and can be remedied simply by requiring homeowners to have their internal accessory dwelling units permitted.

Fourth, paragraph 3 allows internal accessory dwelling units to be occupied, but only prohibits renting them. This distinction makes no sense in terms of concern for the character of the neighborhood. There is nothing about renting vs allowing occupancy without renumeration that is more likely to "change the character of the neighborhood," especially given that whole house/absentee owner rentals are widely permitted in the neighborhood.

In summary, paragraph 3 is not justified by any legitimate concern that allowing rentals of internal accessory dwelling units risks changing the character of the neighborhood.

Conversely, there are important reasons that such rentals should be allowed. Montgomery county is in the grip of a severe housing shortage. Teachers, firefighters, and other moderate-income members of our community struggle to find affordable housing. We can help these people and help to alleviate the housing crisis by allowing rentals of properly permitted internal accessory dwelling units. Restrictive single-family zoning and covenants are part of the problem, and have a sordid history of operating to prevent diversity - income diversity as well as racial and ethnic diversity. While this might not be the motivation for restricting internal accessory unit rentals, it will be the effect, and it's an effect I trust most if not all of our homeowners do not want to be a part of.

Thank you for listening.