Some residents want Kings Estate Homeowners Association to go away

Group questions value of dues; would turnover common grounds to town,By Linda Smith Hancharick Warwick — They own their property from sidewalk to house and the yard surrounding it. They shovel their own snow and maintain their own landscaping. So why does Kings Estates, at least the 40 homes in section 1 of this 375-unit townhouse development, have a homeowners association? That is exactly what several of the homeowners in this middle-class community with beautiful views want to know. Ten of the 40 homeowners in section 1 of Kings Estates filed a lawsuit last month against the homeowners association and its four officers. They are suing to recover money for breach of contract and personal injury, and for equitable relief in the amount of $500,000, along with the dissolution of the Kings Estates Homeowners Association. “We own our building and the property outside,” said Diane Greene, who has lived here for four years with her husband, Jerome. “We pay to insure that on our own.” The group wants the homeowners association to turn the common ground over to the town and then dissolve the association altogether. “There is no reason to have the association,” said Linda Conzo, who, along with her husband, Joe, started a petition to dissolve it, “especially if we turn the common ground over to the town.” The Conzos stopped paying their dues - $12 up until Jan. 1 when they were raised to $25 per month. Many others have done the same. The town is willing to accept the land, according to Supervisor Michael Sweeton. A few years ago the town created the Kings Estates Park District and took over the recreational facilities in the development. The town contracts out the maintenance of the common properties in the district. Each homeowner throughout Kings Estates is taxed for this service. Adding this additional land to the district, Sweeton said, would not be costly. But the homeowners association must vote to approve it before the town can act. Association president agrees - to a point Henry Kuipers, the president of the Kings Estates Homeowners Association, said he agrees with the residents who want to turn over the property to the town. Where he personally disagrees, he said, is in dissolving the association. “I’ve been pushing that myself,” said Kuipers when asked about turning the property over to the town. “It is hard to get enough people to vote. But I do not want to dissolve the association because there are no town ordinances that say you can’t change the look of your unit. If there is no town ordinance that says you can’t do it, we are leaving ourselves open to it.” Ridiculous, say some homeowners. “They don’t want people changing the outside of their property but the other sections do not have a homeowners association and they look very nice,” said Natasha Williamson. “They keep their properties nice. People go to the town for permits. There are no eyesores here.” “We don’t need four individuals dictating to us what we can and can’t do to our houses,” said Greene. “This is the biggest investment most of us will ever make,” said Williamson. “No one is going to paint their house an awful color and not be able to sell it.” “I’m not going to degrade my house,” added Joe Conzo. “I don’t need nobody to tell me that. Before you know it, they’ll be telling us no wood floors, only carpeting.” The homeowners association met Jan. 7. Residents were notified by mail that a vote would be taken on whether to transfer the common ground to the town. Kuipers said he only received a handful of proxy votes and a few more residents came to the meeting, not enough to have a quorum and change ownership. But Kuipers and the residents who want to dissolve the association are reading from two different documents for the rules. Kuipers says that 90 percent of the homeowners in good standing must agree before changing anything. These residents say that used to be the case but as of Jan. 1, only 66 percent must agree. And everyone is in good standing, whether they pay their dues or not. Paying dues or not The residents, according to Kuipers, are looking at the rules that were in effect when the developer was running the show. In black and white it says two-thirds of the residents must agree on changes as of Jan. 1, 2006, and “In no event may voting rights be suspended for non-payment of assessments.” The by-laws Kuipers reads from say 90 percent of the residents must agree — that won’t change until 2011 — and “A member shall be deemed to be in ‘good standing’ and ‘entitled to vote’ ... if, and only if, he shall have fully paid all assessments made or levied against him.” “You have to pay your dues in order to have a vote,” said Kuipers. “Otherwise, what is the point of paying your dues? We have to do what’s right for all homeowners here. You can’t just choose not to pay dues.” John Grattan, who had served as secretary on the board, paid his back assessments after receiving a letter from the association threatening to put a lien on his house if he didn’t. Grattan wants the common property turned over to the town and he wants the association dissolved. “The purpose of the board for the past few years was to get this property on the town rolls,” said Grattan. “Now, there has been a change of opinion. It is frustrating.” The Conzos’ latest bill not only had their unpaid dues, but an additional $200 for legal fees. They haven’t paid it, nor do they intend to. Another issue for some of these homeowners is that several of them didn’t even know there was an association when they bought their units. “The first time I knew there was a homeowners association was when I received my bill saying I was six months late,” said Francis Cimb. “I purposely did not want to buy in a development with a homeowners association. You can’t control the cost from year to year.” Both sides are working to get a majority of residents to the next meeting, which Kuipers said he is hoping to hold in February. But their goals are very different. “We would drop our lawsuit if the association is dissolved,” said Joe Conzo. “It is not about the money. It’s principle. We just want the association to go away.”