Property owner Opal Rivers writes, “Kaylynn, enclosed is my 2006 homeowners fee. But I really don’t like paying this because I know that it is going to an attorney that is really going to hurt me and the value of my home. It is beyond me why this case has went this far. Our deed restrictions plainly state single story homes on block eight. Only- single means single. Not unrestricted heights as you stated. Not story and a half. You stated at our last meeting that you are going to have permanent stairs in your plans so when you are 70 years old you can store your Xmas decorations and walk up to get them. This is fine if it is a regular one story, single-story. But not a story and a half. As at 101 Paradise trail. (Hanson house) Anyone can clearly see the stairway and light fixtures from the street. If these unrestricted heights were built on the four vacant lots in front of me I would have zero view of the lake and my property value would decrease at least one half. I do not accept this. There will be others held responsible such as PCPOA, builders or someone. I was assured by Mr. Charlie Rogers whom I bought my home from and his son who owned the property in front of me. ( C. Williford built on this lot.) This would never happen. I obey the deed restrictions so should block eight.”
Property owner Chris Eubanks writes to C. Shotwell, architectural control committee, “We were at the lake this weekend and noticed the gazebo lot, Hanson’s house, has started to put the walls up. It appears to taller than one story. I just wanted to confirm that the house is a one story and not a two-story or a one-story with a loft. We would be against any deviation from the deed restrictions limiting the lakefront to only one-story.”
Property owner Phyllis A. Morton writes, “I want to register my disapproval of the new home just constructed in block eight lot 11. (Hanson’s house) This house is in violation of the intent of the deed restriction.”
September 3, 2009. The Texas Eleventh Court of Appeals, panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Strange, J. says, “restrictive covenant shall be liberally construed to give effect to its purpose and intent”. “Accordingly, the obvious purpose of the one-story limitation for homes located along the waterfront is to protect the view of the other property owners in the subdivision. We conclude that the Shotwell and Hanson homes comply with the one-story restriction because these homes appear to be one story home when viewed from the exterior. The fact that the owners of these homes choose to utilize a small portion of the attic space in the home for use has no effect on the other property owner’s view of the waterfront.”
The three property owners are right and the Judges are wrong!!!!! The Judges are over 300 miles away. O. Rivers & P. Morton live here.