By Greg Ellison

(Aug. 5, 2021) Pending and potential updates needed to codify short-term rental declarations of restrictions in Ocean Pines were discussed during a special board meeting last Tuesday as part of its consideration of the Triple Crown Estates neighborhood at King Richard Road.

Board members met at the Ocean Pines Golf Clubhouse with attorney Joe Moore, representing developer Marvin Steen and Triple Crown Properties, to review new declarations of restrictions.

“We added the short-term rental provisions you all have discussed in regards with what will be submitted to the [association] members for their determination,” he said.

Moore said attorney Tom Coates, who prepared the red line version being presented, had signed off on the revisions.

“Tom Coates has agreed, subject to your review, to what we have provided,” he said.

Any additional changes proposed by the board would be submitted to Coates for inclusion, Moore said.

“Basically, we submit them to you for your consideration and we’re here to answer any questions,” he said.

Director Doug Parks said he examined the new declarations of restrictions in detail, while using comparable data from Section 13, which was among the original association guidelines.

“I wanted to make sure I saw what was either included or excluded as we move forward,” he said.

Parks had a series of questions based on the newly proposed Section 20 declarations of restrictions.

“In section four of the new DRs, you’ll note that there’s more restrictions on time share, family daycare and bed and breakfast, which are not contained in the old one,” he said. “I would assume that’s by design.”

Association President Larry Perrone hit on the same point, highlighting language specifying an allowance for dwellings to contain an apartment or suite for occupancy by immediate or extended family of the homeowner(s).

“It sounds to me like what were talking about is an in-law suite, which could include a separate entrance,” he said.

Perrone said the latter point would require sign-off from the Architectural Review Committee.

“If the board decides we’re OK with that, we need to understand the wording … in here,” he said. “There’s no way to enforce the fact that would only be for immediate family.”

Moore said under Worcester County regulations family member is defined as direct relatives, with aunts and uncles or nieces and nephews not included.

“It is clear that it must be occupied by a family member,” he said.

Perrone said the point is related to short-term rental considerations.

“This could be an apartment that is being rented and we would really have no way of controlling it,” he said.

Moore said the language, which was intended to mirror past governing document details approved by the board, could be edited out.

“Enforcement is always an issue in the restrictive covenants,” he said.

Parks said enforcement could become subjective in this instance.

“Your interpretation of how that residency is being occupied is always going to be called into question,” he said. “We need to recognize the fact that space designed as an in-law suite is probably flexible.”

Parks said short of an egregious misuse of the separate unit provision for rental purposes, the board should simply be aware of the included language.

Director Dr. Colette Horn concurred with Parks assessment.

“I agree with Doug. Since it’s in other DRs, it’s something we need to be aware … there may be challenges for enforcement,” she said.

Perrone said the question is whether the board should permit homeowners to have living spaces with separate entrances, which could be used as short-term rentals.

“I don’t have a problem with in-law suites,” he said.

Director Frank Daly shifted focus to a side issue with association regulations clashing with Architectural Review Committee guidelines. “The last time the ARC guidelines were changed, wood burning fire pits were permitted,” he said.

Daly said at the same time association declarations of restrictions prohibit burning wood.

“We have a case right now where we have a set of guidelines established by a committee that is not consistent with the DRs,” he said.

Daly said the issue should be addressed separately.

Perrone, who agreed the fire pit issue has generated extensive conversations lately, said he recently discussed it with the Ocean Pines Fire Department.

“They’re OK if it’s in pits and not people burning in holes in their backyard,” he said.

On a related note, Perrone said there are numerous references within various declarations of restrictions that reference the Architectural Review Committee by its previous name, the Environmental Control Committee.

“It’s a minor point but it could be updated in this deal,” he said.

Parks said declarations of restrictions drafted after 1995 mention an appeals process that has yet to be incorporated within ARC guidelines.

“In the old DRs, it says the ECC’s decision was final and there was no appeal process,” he said.

Moore said the topic had caused disagreement among previous board members back in the Environmental Control Committee era.

“That was the subject of considerable debate with the board that were determining the issue of the right of appeal,” he said.

Moore acknowledged the earlier Environmental Control Committee guidelines lacked an appeals option for its decisions.

“The board wasn’t the final determiner,” he said.

Moore recalled an instance where the ECC refused to revisit a decision the board had requested altered.

“So the board terminated what were then the members of the ECC and got it approved,” he said.

Perrone asked Director Frank Brown, who serves as board liaison to the Architectural Review Committee, for input.

“We’ve talked about the appeals process and some of the things that have occurred in the last year and a half,” Perrone said.

Brown noted under declarations of restrictions predating the mid-1990s, the board lacks any appeal process.

“It depends on what section you’re in,” he said.

Brown said Architectural Review Committee members recently discussed the topic.

“The ARC Committee felt the board should have the final say, but it had to go to the board to have the DRs changed,” he said.

Daly said the declarations of restrictions range widely in age.

“The oldest DR we have is dated 1968,” he said.

Along with amending association’ governing documents to incorporate Worcester County short-term rental regulations, Daly suggested that some legal language cleanup might be in order.

“I’m not talking about anything major that’s going to shift the axis of the Earth, but simple things in terminology that applies to the realities of the law in society today, not 50 years ago,” he said.

Moore recommended the association consider drafting universal declarations of restrictions for the entire subdivision.

Parks said the board has broached the possibility.

“We had talked about the idea of trying to get DRs across the sections consistent with one another,” he said. “At some point we’re going to have to step up and see if it makes sense to do that.”

Perrone said the board could consider approval of the Section 20 declarations of restrictions after Coates reviewed and agreed to final revisions.