Woodson Estates Needs Your Help!

Reason: To update language to reflect the intention of the document

The current version defines “landlord property” as three units or more. This changes it to any property with two or more family units (duplexes), where the units are owned by the same individual or company. Some duplexes have had the lot split and have separate owners on each side. With this change, the owners for each side will have a full vote and pay the “improved property” rate, which is currently $60. If the entire duplex is owned by one individual or company, they would have one vote total and pay at the “landlord property” rate, which is currently $75.

Reason: Allows the Board of Directors to lessen the restrictions, but not increase them. Creates a reasonable fine structure for enforcement of restrictions.

1. This is to allow for new materials in construction. Since the roofing and building requirements for sheds in the new restrictions include limits on materials used, if new materials (metal or solar roofing that has a weathered wood look, etc.) become available and are acceptable, we should be able to amend the restrictions to allow them.
2. At this time, we can only enforce restrictions by taking a homeowner to court, which is excessive and expensive. This allows us to fine the homeowner for violating a restriction using a rate structure voted on at the annual meeting. If not paid, these fines become liens, just as annual assessments do.
3. If a violation does come to the point of going to court, the homeowner who was breaking the restriction will be liable for court fees.

Reason: The dues are much too low to maintain the properties and neighborhood

1. The increased base is what we currently vote on to keep our assessments each year. The amount we have set the assessment for is the maximum we are allowed without this amendment. That amount is $60 for “improved property” and $75 for “landlord property”.
2. The new amendment does not set a limit on the assessment amount, and requires a 2/3 majority in attendance at the annual meeting to approve an increase. The Board cannot raise the assessments on its own and will make a recommendation at the annual meeting.

Reason: As of now, court costs are greater than the cost of the assessments we are trying to collect, unless an owner is behind for several years of assessments.

Reason: Many amenities, like the pool, park, and snow removal might be in jeopardy if we cannot meet the costs to maintain them.

This allows the Board to borrow money for capital improvements, so long as the cost is covered by the annual assessments. If the improvements cannot be done with the current budget and assessments need to be increased, the increase must be approved at the annual meeting.

Reason: cleaning up vague language

Restriction 4 is the overnight parking restriction. We added times to the original restriction to specify the hours that constitute the meaning of overnight. There has been a lot of discussion on this restriction, including whether to keep it or not. At issue is the fact that we cannot enforce the restriction because the cities own the streets. In the end, we decided to keep the restriction as a neighborly agreement even though it cannot be enforced. If you want it enforced on your street and have a Kansas City address, there are petitions available through the city. The petition requires the signatures of 75% of the homeowners on your block. If you collect the signatures, the city will post “No Parking” signs, then law enforcement can enforce the restriction.

This is the accordion body content. It is typically best to keep this area short and to the point so it isn't too overwhelming.

Restrictions 5-13 are for keeping up the appearance of the neighborhood. If a concern you have is not listed with these restrictions, it is likely in the city ordinance for the city you live in, whether it is Raytown or Kansas City. The main change in these restrictions is in number seven. Restriction 7 allows homeowners to have a shed, but includes specific building requirements. In the past, sheds have not been allowed.

Reason: Many homeowners have expressed a desire to have or build sheds on their property.

In the past, sheds have not been allowed and any outbuilding required board approval to be built.

Currently, Woodson Estates HOA does not enforce the provision that bans sheds from the neighborhood, so long as the shed conforms to the following standards:

1. Meet City Building Requirements.
2. Maximum size 10' x 12'.
3. Placed on a concrete pad.
4. Must use treated lumber for frame.
5. Must use wood or vinyl siding
6. Must be in back yard
7. Distance from main house and from fence must be 6".
8. Same roof requirements as house.
9. Same color as house.
10. May only be one story high, a story being 8'.
11. Only one per lot.
12. Pre-made metal, plastic, or fiberglass sheds are not allowed.
13. Plans including color must be submitted to the board for approval.

Restriction 14 is regarding new home construction in the subdivision. This is unlikely to come up, unless a home is destroyed, as there are not new lots in the subdivision. It is a protection to keep the housing similar through the neighborhood.

Restrictions 15-18 are to cover the legal status of these restrictions. Restriction 15 is in the original and says if one is deemed illegal it will not invalidate all. Restriction 16 is in the original as well, but we’ve added the ability to use a fine structure. Restrictions 17 & 18 are also original, and are why we require your signature at this time. We need two-thirds of the owners to sign to make these changes. Restriction 17 is why if you did not sign for the original, your property is still part of the Homes Association including the restrictions. It states that the restrictions run with the land, meaning that these documents follow the property and not the owner. Whoever owns the property is part of the Homes Association.

Reason: We're welcoming to all people.

Finally, we removed one of the original restrictions that requires homeowners to give the “first right of refusal” to the homeowner on either side of their home once it is under contract. This required two weeks notice to your next door neighbors to allow them to match the contract and purchase the home themselves. The original intent was to discriminate against certain groups of people wishing to buy a home, and does not reflect our neighborhood’s values. WEHA does not enforce this provision, nonetheless, we want it to be removed from the restrictions.