Solar Panels

(00:00) Speaker: It's time for AMG's 2023 Community Leaders Series Podcast Edition. Over the last three decades, AMG has worked to make the role of community leaders more effective and less of a headache. Seminar topics are a response to what our Executive board members have requested.

(00:18) Speaker: Unfortunately, it's my understanding there's not a link or a guide that we can send people to that gives them the answer to this. It's a matter of reconciling their legal documents with the statute and then with court cases. So unfortunately, this really takes some legal research.

(00:36) Speaker: And now here's your host and CEO of AMG, Paul K. Mengert.

(00:41) Paul K. Mengert: Welcome, everyone, to AMG 2023 Community Leaders Series Podcast Edition. Our topic for this episode is solar panels, and I'm pleased to have Harmony Taylor as a special guest today. Harmony, welcome. Thanks, Paul. I want to mention that Harmony is a partner with Law Firm Carolinas in Charlotte, although she serves the Carolina region. Her practice focuses on representation of community associations in litigated and non-litigated matters. She regularly speaks to boards, managers, and owners of community associations related to topics including CAI’s Law Day, the National CAI Conference, and the National CAI Law Seminar. She possesses extensive expertise in solar panels and their regulations, and in the 2022 drafted CAI Amicus Curiae Brief or Friend of the Court Brief in the Belmont Association Fair Wig Case before the North Carolina Supreme Court. Harmony, really nice of you to take time to be with us and help our community leaders better understand the regulations related to solar panels in North Carolina. And I want to emphasize that this is going to be really focused on North Carolina solar panels. And for our clients in South Carolina, we'll have to get you separate information. But Harmony, let's just jump right in and ask you I want to ask you, what do our community leaders in North Carolina need to know about solar panels?

(02:22) Harmony Taylor: Well, Paul, this is such an interesting topic. And in light of the Belmont Decision last year, the law has really been in something of a state of flux, particularly with the interpretation. So, I'll say that anyone who is looking at an issue in their community related to solar probably needs to consult with their attorney up front to make sure they understand what the law is and how to use it. I think there are two main things associations really need to be on the lookout for and aware of. First, solar panels just aren't what they used to be. They're not the same old, clunky, and unattractive black boxes they were. And then, communities really do need to understand that the tide has come to North Carolina and the South in favor of solar panels. So, looking at the law as it changes and looking at governing documents together, people need to understand that there is a trend to promote solar energy and communities that understand that process and get out in front of it are going to be well situated to work with their owners and coming up with ways to do that within the governing documents.

(03:23) Paul K. Mengert: Very good point. And I know I've mentioned to you before, usually when AMG gets an inquiry about what can we do about solar panels, we often refer them to you and certainly refer them to legal counsel. It's a very complicated set of laws in North Carolina, and I think a lot of boards really do want to work with homeowners on how they might be able to have solar panels. But it's really a lot of unknowns about what the association can and cannot require.

(03:58) Harmony Taylor: Right. I think that's absolutely true. We want to avoid analysis paralysis and jump into the actual issues. I do find that most boards I work with really want to work with homeowners and the installers to the extent they need to be involved to figure out a way to make this work for owners in a way that still maintains the aesthetics of the community, something everybody bought into.

(04:21) Paul K. Mengert: Right. So, it's a part of that giant balancing act that we so much talk about protecting the rights of the person who wants to put up the solar panel while also protecting the rights of the neighbors who may not want to look at the solar panels.

(04:35) Harmony Taylor: Definitely.

(04:36) Paul K. Mengert: Well, thank you, Harmony. This is a great start. We're going to take an AMG Community Leader Series newsbreak and we'll be right back.

(04:44) Speaker: And now it's time for your HOA Solutions Today newsbreak.

(04:48) Newsbreak: This news update is brought to you by Pye-Barker Fire & Safety. For more information or to get in touch, please call them at (336) 856-8701. In a contentious legal battle. Spanning 17 years, a Michigan homeowner has become the center of controversy, raising concerns among neighbors and local officials. At the heart of the matter are the number of cars the homeowner keeps on his property, which has sparked a legal challenge from the township in 2007. Over the years, the legal dispute has seen twists and turns, with the homeowner prevailing in its initial legal challenge. However, the township revisited its concerns a decade later and took a controversial step to gather evidence. According to court documents, the township hired a drone operator on multiple occasions in 2017 and 2018 to conduct aerial surveillance of the owner's property, seeking to obtain a bird's eye view to establish violations. The resident’s legal team argues that the use of drones crossed the line of unreasonable searches, infringing upon the Fourth Amendment, Rights of Privacy. They contend that the vehicles on the property were not visible from the ground and the drone surveillance constituted as an invasion of their privacy. The case has seen varying views from different courts, culminating to a recent 2 to 1 legal defeat for the homeowner in the state's Court of Appeals. In response, they have filed an appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which has just announced its decision to take up the case. As the legal battle continues, both sides await the Michigan Supreme Court's decision, which has the potential to shape future discussions on the boundaries of privacy and drone surveillance in the state and beyond.

(06:20) Paul K. Mengert: We're back. I'm Paul K. Mengert, and I'm here with Harmony Taylor discussing solar panels. Harmony, this is just great information. Talk to me about if a board gets a request, they want a, someone in their community wants a solar panel, how do they navigate the situation? Let's first of all clarify that we're talking about in a single-family home environment or a townhome environment. If it's a condominium environment, there's probably no option for at least in the vast preponderance of the cases, there's probably no option for a solar panel in a condominium association, is that right?

(06:56) Harmony Tayler: Not with current technology, usually not. But that probably will change your point to the single family attached and detached homes. When that comes up, the first thing an association really needs to do is to consult with their attorney. If it's the first time they've handled one of these to make sure they understand how the law is going to impact them here. Because first, we've got to figure out what the law says they have to do and then look at their governing documents and see how those two things interplay. And then the association can start considering what, if anything, can they allow, and if so, how do they need to do that?

(07:32) Paul K. Mengert: Yeah, I might just add, just working with a lot of boards, if somebody tells you, oh, we got an opinion on this 2 or 3 years ago and XYZ was the conclusion, if I was a director, unless I can read that opinion from the law firm and it's a law firm that regularly practices in this area, I might be concerned about kind of what I call a hearsay opinion where I heard them say a few years ago it was this, particularly with the flux and the change in the law and the Belmont case. This may even be something that needs to be revisited if you got an opinion a couple of years ago.

(08:11) Harmony Tayler: Yeah, that's definitely the case. You want to make sure you're up to date on the current legislation and the current court decisions which have come out. I'll tell you; we're seeing laws that are being put forward in the legislature. Nothing's gained traction in the past year, but we may see something in the next year or so. So, make sure you're staying in discussions with your manager or your attorney and keeping abreast of the changes in the law that come out on this.

(08:36) Paul K. Mengert: Unfortunately, it's my understanding that there's not a link or a guide that we can send people to that gives them the answer to this. It's a matter of reconciling their legal documents with the statute and then with court cases. So unfortunately, this really takes some legal research.

(08:54) Harmony Taylor: It does. But in most cases, this is not going to be a substantial project. Communities don't need to feel worried that this is going to break the bank for them to figure out what they can do. It really is something that within the governing documents and within the law, there are a few essential pieces that most attorneys can look at and pretty quickly get them some direction on that so that going forward, they feel like they're properly educated and are able to at least identify the situations when they come up.

(09:22) Paul K. Mengert: Well, that's a great point. And I'm glad you said that, because I think a lot of times boards are concerned about the cost of getting legal guidance and I’ll avoid getting on my soapbox and giving my speech about how it's cheaper to get guidance up front than it is, you know, as a reactionary to having a complaint or lawsuit filed against the association. But would you, I know I hate to put you on the spot, but would you guesstimate that it takes a couple hours for you to figure out where the association is going to fall on the spectrum of having to allow solar panels?

(09:56) Harmony Taylor: Paul I think that's right. And that's why not to promote any particular firm, but you want to make sure you're working with an attorney who understands these issues and stays abreast of them. If they do, this isn't a huge project, and it won't take more than a couple of hours. And I'll tell you, I'm a litigator. If your litigator is telling you you're going to save money up front, getting that consultation and not having to use my litigation services, that's usually probably good advice.

(10:21) Paul K. Mengert: Well, hold that thought, Harmony. We're going to go to another newsbreak. And when we come back, I want you to talk about some of the litigation and lessons learned in that. And I know community leaders always enjoy hearing about litigation they didn't have to pay for. So, I'm sure they'll be very interested.

(10:39) Speaker: And here's another HOA Solutions Today newsbreak.

(10:43) Newsbreak: Multiple homeowner associations in northeast Charlotte have been complaining about a local towing company, sparking a wave of discontent among residents. One resident characterized the company as verbally abusive, highly aggressive, and remarkably rude, adding to the growing chorus of disapproval. The grievances have not been confined to HOAs alone. Residents and other neighborhoods, including some apartment complexes, have taken to social media to vent their frustrations about the same towing company's practices. Over the past months the situation has escalated, with six drivers filing police reports against the company since last October. Allegations suggest that the towing company has violated Charlotte's towing rules, such as only accepting one form of payment and failing to meet the required 45-minute release time for impound vehicles. In response to these complaints, a reporter contacted the towing company and spoke with the alleged owner. The owner defended the company's actions, claiming that HOAs and apartment complexes had hired them to be aggressive and enforcing parking rules. He also refuted the payment related allegations, stating that they accept multiple forms of payment after verifying their legitimacy. Regarding the 45-minute release time, the owner clarified that they do not monitor the lot around the clock, but assured that if people call in advance, they make sure someone is available within the stipulated time frame. The contentious situation has raised questions about the balance between enforcing parking rules and maintaining respectful practices in the community. As residents continue to voice their concerns and seek resolution, local authorities may play a critical role in addressing the issues and ensuring fair practices and towing operations within the area.

(12:17) Paul K. Mengert: Welcome back, folks. I'm Paul K. Mengert and I'm here with Harmony Taylor, an attorney who has done a lot of work on solar panel dish installation and trying to reconcile that with restrictive covenants and communities. Harmony, I know you were very involved in the case that's known as the Belmont Case. Can you talk for a few minutes about things that might interest community leaders about how that case went and kind of what the where the board thought and how they thought it and how the court saw it differently.

(12:50) Harmony Taylor: The Belmont Case that came out last year is sort of an interesting example of how communities find themselves in litigation related to solar or really any architectural dispute. The fundamental issue here was that the owners installed some solar panels on the front of their house without getting advance architectural approval. And this association had typical language requiring architectural approval for modifications to the exterior. The homeowners objected and did not believe they needed to do so, but ultimately did submit a request which was denied. And the basis was the installation was on the front of the home. And the issue came down to whether or not the homeowners would be allowed to have these panels on the front of their home in violation of a long-standing precedent in the community. And I want to point out here that many communities have either not dealt with solar in a substantial way in the past or they've always been able to work with owners who have wanted solar on the backs of their own homes for whatever reason. And so, they haven't found themselves in litigation or really hotly disputing these issues. But more and more people are wanting to put on the panels because they're changing, they might be more attractive, and they even have the integrated roofs like the Tesla roofs. So, we're going to see more people wanting to do that. And where things sort of fell off the rails with the Belmont Case was probably a fundamental disagreement between the homeowners who wanted to have the panels on there and they wanted them in the most advantageous place. And the association, which was really stressing the aesthetics and the desire to be consistent with prior determinations that it kept everything such as a solar panel installation on the backs of homes. So, I would note here that there was a decision made by this board, and I don't represent that association, that the association didn't want these panels on the front. I would say that it's a good idea for any community looking at disputing over issues with solar panels, possible litigation or even looking proactively and saying, where are we going to go to figure out what the community wants? I'm not aware that that was done in this case, and think it would be helpful, particularly if a community is looking at jumping into litigation that could be very expensive, with unlikely recovery of attorney fees to make sure that the board is acting consistent with the will of the community collectively, and not just the small group who may have very strong positions on solar based upon prior experience.

(15:21) Paul K. Mengert: Harmony I just can't agree with you more on that point. I've, in several cases, been involved in protracted litigation with an association and all of a sudden you get an annual meeting, and the homeowners say, why are we fighting this? We think what this person did was a great thing. And you find out that the only five people in the community that think it's bad were on the board. So, it is really one of the roles of community leaders to build consensus of why they're doing what they're doing, particularly if it's going to end up spending substantial amounts of community money. So, I just could not stress that point more strongly to our leaders to, you know, make sure that your neighbors share your position on these matters before you get too deep into them. Yeah, I didn’t mean to interrupt you, but I just felt that was so important that.

(16:17) Harmony Taylor: I completely agree. The board of directors represents the membership collectively and counsel retained by the association as counsel for the association acting through the board but manifesting the will of the community. And we take that seriously and want to make sure that when we're pursuing that, we're following the will of that community there throughout the process. With any of this restrictions or dealing with solar panel disputes that come up, it's incredibly important in the context of litigation or otherwise to keep really good records about exactly what was done and the timing. The Belmont Case, again, had some delays with submittal of architectural requests. It's always helpful to get those requests in on time and if someone doesn't have them in in a timely manner, consistent with the governing documents, it's important for the association to act quickly if it's going to do so, to avoid any unreasonable delays, which could also impact the litigation going forward. The takeaways of the Belmont Case are that associations generally cannot only rely on architectural language to restrict solar panels, particularly in newer communities. Now, there are some situations where older communities might not fall under particular statutes, and that's why you got to get the lawyers involved. But for new communities, often there does need to be more specific language and addressing the possibility of litigation. If communities have a collective strong opinion one way or another about solar panels, it's a good idea to figure out what they can restrict and if they need an amendment or to change their governing documents in some way to really tailor it to that, that is helpful. That also will help to avoid litigation, to avoid the ambiguities that might arise from conflicting documents.

(18:04) Paul K. Mengert: Great, great points. And I think really super helpful information for our community leaders who are, you know, dealing with this kind of issue or other potentially litigious type issues that unfortunately, you know, do pop up from time to time in the community association world. Well, thank you, Harmony. We're going to take one final newsbreak.

(18:33) Speaker: And now our final HOA Solutions Today newsbreak.

(18:39) Newsbreak: In Florida, a homeowner’s battle against their HOA over home repairs has gained attention after their victory against restrictive rules. A redditor shared the story of her parents, who faced a dilemma when their home was damaged by hurricanes needing a roof replacement. The homeowners explored options and decided on a metal roof for its durability and ecofriendly benefits. However, upon checking the HOA rules, they discovered that metal roofs were prohibited. Unconvinced that the 30-year-old rule applied to their modern and appealing choice, they dug deeper into the bylaws, realizing that the prohibition referred to older tin roofs. Seeking clarification, the homeowners contacted the HOA and patiently waited for two months for a reply. With no response, they proceeded with the metal roof installation and in response, the HOA swiftly imposed a staggering $25,000 fine and ordered the removal of the new roof. The Redditor attributed this harsh decision to the HOA's financial woes, prompting them to levy excessive fines on the neighborhood. Undeterred, the homeowners found a law in Florida that forbids HOAs from banning environmentally friendly upgrades. As their chosen metal roof generated heat passively and reduced energy consumption, it qualified under this legislation.

(19:50) Paul K. Mengert: We're back, everyone. And as we close out today, I think it's important to remember a few things from today's episode. And then I want to give my takeaways and then I want to, as always, let my guests have the kind of final word. But the takeaways that I really see with the solar panel issues. Number one, you really need to consult with an attorney on the front end and make sure you understand the rules that you're subject to, because in some cases they're just not intuitive. In other cases, they'll be, you know, darn right in conflict with what's in the community governing documents. So, you just really do need to get some legal input in that. Good news is probably not going to be terribly expensive. And you may only have to get that kind of input once and then you'll be able to apply it to multiple cases. The second thing that I think came out of today's episode that's super important is about building community support and consensus around what you're going to do and whether that be the color of the house being painted or a solar dish or a solar panel. It's really important for the community leaders to take seriously understanding their role as representatives of the community members and making sure that their views are being accurately and appropriately represented. And in closing, I just really want to emphasize that when an association does start down the path of litigation, whether it be about solar or something else, really important to work with your attorney in advance to kind of understand what the problems with your case may be. Because I think a lot of times we've got to be careful as community leaders not to drink our own Kool-Aid and become too convinced that our position is right, but also to really spend time trying to understand what the other side of an issue may, may be and you know what the possible solutions, short of kind of becoming involved in in a proceeding where you're getting legal with it. So, if there's a compromise, always a good thing to find. And Harmony, I do want to give you the last word, last summary, and really appreciate you being with us today. I think this has been a very important and informative episode of our Community Leaders Series Podcast Edition.

(22:24) Harmony Taylor: Thanks, Paul. This is a topic that I really care about, and I think is incredibly interesting. I believe that the points that you raised are all accurate, and I would just remind community leaders that approaching a solar issue from a cooperative standpoint is going to be incredibly helpful as you move forward and navigate the process in dealing with homeowners, that's always important, but it's particularly important here where there do tend to be issues where people get their hackles up about solar. So, approach it with an open mind, work with your owners and your third-party vendors for as long as you possibly can and see if there's a way to find some common ground that again, gets us to a situation where you've got a happy owner and a happy community.

(23:10) Paul K. Mengert: Thank you. And thank you, everyone, for tuning into our episode today. And special thanks to Harmony Taylor for discussing solar panels with us. Remember, this is particularly germane to North Carolina Community Associations, although the many of the concepts we discussed I think apply in other states. But of course, the law is different by state, so the actual statute is going to be different. But the part about getting legal advice up front and building consensus that applies, I believe, in any jurisdiction. I'm Paul K. Menger, your host of the 2023 AMG Community Leaders Series Podcast Edition. If you would like to explore more of our podcast episodes or access additional 2023 CLS content, please visit HOACommunityLeaders.com.

(24:05) Speaker: Thanks for listening to 2023 AMG's Community Leaders Series Podcast Edition. To find more information on this episode, please visit HOACommunityLeaders.com. This podcast is a production of BG Ad Group.

(24:20) Speaker: All rights reserved.

• As an association, you really need to consult with an attorney on the front end and make sure you understand the rules that you're subject to when someone wants to install solar panels.

• As a Board, it’s important to remember that it is about building community support and consensus around what you're going to do and it's really important for the community leaders to take seriously their role as representatives of the community members, and making sure that their views are being accurately and appropriately represented.

• When an association does start down the path of litigation, whether it be about solar or something else, it’s important to work with your attorney in advance, to understand what the problems with your case may be.

Man says hoa used drone to spy on his home

In a contentious legal battle spanning 17 years, a Michigan homeowner has become the center of controversy, raising concerns among neighbors and local officials. At the heart of the matter are the number of cars the homeowner keeps on his property, which sparked a legal challenge from the township in 2007. Over the years, the legal dispute has seen twists and turns, with the homeowner prevailing in the initial legal challenge. However, the township revisited its concerns a decade later and took a controversial step to gather evidence. According to court documents, the township hired a drone operator on multiple occasions in 2017 and 2018 to conduct aerial surveillance of the owner’s property, seeking to obtain a bird's-eye view to establish violations. The resident’s legal team argued that the use of drones crossed the line of unreasonable searches, infringing upon the Fourth Amendment rights of privacy. They contend that the vehicles on the property were not visible from the ground, and the drone surveillance constituted an invasion of their privacy. The case has seen varying views from different courts, culminating in a recent 2 to 1 legal defeat for the homeowner in the State's Court of Appeals. In response, they have filed an appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which has just announced its decision to take up the case. As the legal battle continues, both sides await the Michigan Supreme Court's decision, which has the potential to shape future discussions on the boundaries of privacy and drone surveillance in the state and beyond.

Residents complain about towing company hoa, apartment complex hired

Multiple homeowners' associations (HOAs) in northeast Charlotte have been complaining about a local towing company, sparking a wave of discontent among residents. One resident characterized the company as verbally abusive, highly aggressive, and remarkably rude, adding to the growing chorus of disapproval. The grievances have not been confined to HOAs alone; residents in other neighborhoods, including some apartment complexes, have taken to social media to vent their frustrations about the same towing company's practices. Over the past months, the situation has escalated, with six drivers filing police reports against the company since last October. Allegations suggest that the towing company has violated Charlotte's towing rules, such as only accepting one form of payment and failing to meet the required 45-minute release time for impounded vehicles. In response to these complaints, a reporter contacted the towing company and spoke with the alleged owner. The owner defended the company's actions, claiming that HOAs and apartment complexes had hired them to be aggressive in enforcing parking rules. He also refuted the payment-related allegations, stating that they accept multiple forms of payment after verifying their legitimacy. Regarding the 45-minute release time, the owner clarified that they do not monitor the lot around the clock but assured that if people call in advance, they make sure someone is available within the stipulated timeframe. The contentious situation has raised questions about the balance between enforcing parking rules and maintaining respectful practices in the community. As residents continue to voice their concerns and seek resolution, local authorities may play a critical role in addressing the issues and ensuring fair practices in towing operations within the area.

Homeowners get revenge on HOA that tried to block their hurricane-proof roof: ‘Fine print gets you every time’

In Florida, a homeowner's battle against their HOA over home repairs has gained attention after their victory against restrictive rules. A Redditor shared the story of her parents, who faced a dilemma when their home was damaged by hurricanes, necessitating a roof replacement. The homeowners explored roofing options and decided on a metal roof for its durability and eco-friendly benefits. However, upon checking the HOA rules, they discovered that metal roofs were prohibited. Unconvinced that the 30-year-old rule applied to their modern and appealing choice, they dug deeper into the bylaws, realizing that the prohibition referred to older tin roofs. Seeking clarification, the homeowners contacted the HOA and patiently waited for two months for a reply. With no response, they proceeded with the metal roof installation. In response, the HOA swiftly imposed a staggering $25,000 fine and ordered the removal of the new roof. The Redditor attributed this harsh decision to the HOA's financial woes, prompting them to levy excessive fines on the neighborhood. Undeterred, the homeowners found a law in Florida that forbids HOAs from banning environmentally friendly upgrades. As their chosen metal roof generated heat passively and reduced energy consumption, it qualified under this legislation.