Message from SCIA Board to Membership.

Why the 2025-2026 CCR Update is important.

Schedule of CCR Update

SCIA Attorney Patty Arnold Zoom Video and Transcript

Q&A Summary from Patty Arnold Zoom Video

Objections to the 2025-2026 Update process.

Stonegate Community Improvement Association (SCIA) Members,

Last year the Board began the process of ensuring that our CCRs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions) reflected the most up-to-date Texas Legislative updates. After speaking to our attorney of record, Mrs. Patty Arnold, a draft update was created. It was reviewed by the Board and the ACC in an hour-long meeting with Mrs. Arnold on December 4, 2025. The Legislative updates being considered for adoption do not require a majority vote by membership, but rather a vote by the Board during a special meeting. Below is the schedule for membership to review, submit questions, and participate in the Open Board Meeting.

The draft is available for all membership to access via the following link: https://www.stonegatelanehoa.com/docs. (A paper copy can be provided upon request.)

The 2025-2026 CCR Update Draft updates the language from the last SCIA CCR update that occurred in 2012 and 2013.

This Draft includes the latest Texas Legislative property code created during the 2025 session concerning the following items:

1. Collections Policy
2. Payment Plan Policy
3. Records Production Policy
4. Records Retention Policy
5. Enforcement Policy
6. Policies Regarding Certain Installations, such as: solar, security, rain water collection, satellites, pools etc.
7. Policy Regarding Bid Protocol

Updating our CCRs enables the ACC and the Board to clarify our rules and enforce those rules to protect the community. The process of creating consistent policies and guidelines, based on our CCRs, will help to eliminate confusion for our SCIA Members, and also clearly outline plans and procedures to help Members who aren't in compliance. Without these updates, we cannot move forward with any of the necessary community improvements that were voted on in the September 2025 Annual Meeting.

Below is the schedule for the review, comment, and Open Board Meeting.

February 11 – February 23, 2026

Member Review Period

Members may submit written comments and questions by submitting an email to info@StonegateLaneHOA.com

February 23, 2026 @ 7:00PM

Member Comment Period

Open Zoom meeting for member questions and clarification regarding the proposed CCR updates.

March 9 @ 7:00PM

Open Board Meeting Via Zoom

The Board clarifies any outstanding issues, and if all issues are resolved, then the Board votes to adopt the Draft as part of the CCRs.

February — April (Exact Dates TBD)

Guideline and Procedure Workshops

The Board and ACC together and separately work through CCRs to clarify guidelines and to simplify procedures.

Questions and Patty Arnold’s Salient Answers

Condensed 1–2 page summary derived from transcript text.

Summary of Q&A:

1. Why can the board adopt these updates without a membership vote?

Because the package is primarily board-adopted rules/policies (many required by Texas Property Code) rather than amendments to the Declaration/CC&Rs. Amendments to the Declaration generally require an owner vote; rules typically do not. Some topics (e.g., short-term rental restrictions) often require a Declaration amendment to “stick,” depending on existing governing document language.

2. Which policies are required vs optional?

Payment plan policy and records production/retention policies are required; a collection policy is advisable (and necessary if charging late fees); enforcement policy is required only if the HOA wants the option to fine; bid protocol is required if entering contracts over $50,000. Policies on “certain installations” (solar, rainwater, satellite/antenna, flags/flagpoles, etc.) are required if the HOA wants to regulate those items—otherwise the statute can make them effectively off-limits to regulation.

3. Do Texas legislative changes apply even if the HOA doesn’t adopt updates?

The HOA must comply with the law, and when the law requires adoption and recording of a rule/policy, the HOA must adopt and record it. Patty pointed to Property Code Chapters 207 and 209 for these requirements.

4. Why can the board “pick and choose” which items to include?

The elected board sets rules within the authority granted by the Declaration and applicable statutes. Not every conceivable HOA policy must be adopted; the board focuses on required items and, for optional categories (e.g., political signs/religious displays), the board can decide whether it wants regulation—especially in a large-lot community.

5. How are rules different from Declaration amendments (examples like masonry, garages, height)?

The Declaration is general and delegates discretion to the ACC/ARC to define and administer standards. Rules/guidelines “color in between the lines” by defining terms and measurements (e.g., what counts as masonry; what qualifies as a garage; how to measure height). Those clarifications are treated as rules, not amendments.

6. Why are some existing CC&R provisions (e.g., antennas) not enforceable without new policies?

Certain installations are governed by special federal/state rules. Patty cited the FCC OTARD rule for antennas/satellite dishes and explained that Texas statutes can require a specific policy format before an HOA may enforce or regulate those protected installations.

7. What should happen with internal ACC workflow documents (e.g., dispute resolution workflow)?

Internal operating procedures generally should not be recorded. Only documents that owners are held accountable to should be recorded. Recording internal workflows can reduce flexibility and can create a trap if boards later change processes without rerecording.

8. What’s the approach to updating older recorded documents (2012/2013) vs adopting the 2025 update packet?

Don’t work backward through outdated versions. Use the updated packet as the forward baseline; avoid rerecording bylaws if already recorded; ensure articles of incorporation are recorded; review architectural submission/guidelines to ensure they’re current (electronic submissions, updated materials, current addresses).

9. How should the fine schedule and examples like “safety violations” be handled?

A fine schedule is now expected/required; examples are templates and can be customized. Even without amenities, “safety” can include private-road speeding, burning restrictions, etc. The HOA can modify examples (e.g., replace fireworks with unauthorized burning per the CC&Rs) to reduce ambiguity.

10. What’s the recommended board–ACC interface and appeals process?

Because owners may have a right of appeal, Patty recommends a non-voting board liaison attend ACC meetings to flag sensitive matters, align expectations, and avoid the board later appearing to rubber-stamp or undermine ACC decisions. Conflicted board members should recuse on their own submissions.

11. Can the HOA grant one-off variances without losing enforcement power later?

Yes, but the HOA should document the rationale (e.g., preserving heritage trees) in the property file so future boards can distinguish circumstances and avoid unintended precedent.

12. How should EZHOA (portal) be used for notices?

A portal can help distribute required notices (e.g., notice of an open board meeting to adopt rules), but notices should also be sent by email. Patty is not familiar with EZHOA specifically but described portal-plus-email as useful practice.

13. Recording strategy to reduce cost?

Recording a single document with a cover page and exhibits can reduce county filing fees compared with recording multiple separate documents.

Objections will be listed in order as they are received. All objections and questions can be directed to info@StonegateLaneHOA.com to be posted.

February 22, 2026

FORMAL NOTICE TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Stonegate Community Improvement Association (SCIA)

Subject: Governance Objection and Request for Clarification – Proposed CCR Update, Legislative Authority, Notice Requirements, and Adoption Process

To the Board of Directors,

I am submitting this notice to formally document governance and procedural concerns regarding the proposed CCR updates, associated dedicatory instruments, and the process currently being presented to the community.

This communication is not intended to oppose reasonable modernization or compliance with Texas legislative changes. Rather, it is intended to ensure that the Association operates strictly within the scope of its authority, maintains transparency with membership, and avoids adopting or enforcing provisions that may later be challenged as invalid or unenforceable.

I. SCOPE OF PROPOSED CHANGES – COMPLETE REWRITE WITHOUT REQUIRED COMMUNITY RATIFICATION

Based on the materials circulated to members, the proposal appears to extend far beyond targeted legislative updates. The package replaces previously adopted policies and introduces new enforcement structures, architectural authority, administrative procedures, and operational frameworks.

Characterizing a comprehensive restructuring of governance documents as a “legislative update” is concerning. Legislative changes do not automatically require an HOA to rewrite its governing documents, nor do they grant authority to implement a broad replacement of policies without the ratification process contemplated by the existing Declaration.

Where revisions materially alter enforcement authority, member obligations, or the scope of Board discretion, those changes constitute substantive governance modifications. Absent proper community ratification, implementation of such provisions risks exceeding the authority granted to the Board under the governing documents.

II. SELECTIVE APPLICATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF LEGISLATIVE UPDATES

The Board has stated that the proposal incorporates legislative updates; however, the materials provided do not clearly identify which specific statutes require amendment or explain why certain legislative items have been included while others have not.

Selective inclusion of legislative provisions without clear explanation raises concerns that discretionary governance changes are being advanced under the broader label of statutory compliance. Transparency requires:

• Clear identification of each legislative change being relied upon;

• Explanation of whether adoption is mandatory or optional;

• Clarification as to why certain provisions are included while others are omitted.

Without this clarity, it is difficult for members to distinguish legitimate compliance updates from policy expansions that materially increase enforcement authority or administrative control.

III. FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROPER NOTICE REQUIRED BY CURRENT CC&Rs

In addition to the authority concerns above, the process followed to date does not appear to satisfy the notice expectations contemplated by the Association’s original Declaration.

The CURRENT Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions establish governance and amendment procedures that contemplate formal member notice and participation when substantive changes to governing instruments are proposed.

A compressed virtual comment period, without clearly identifying the scope of changes or the statutory necessity for each revision, does not appear consistent with the spirit or intent of those provisions. Proper notice requires more than circulation of a draft labeled as a legislative update when the proposal effectively replaces existing governance structures.

IV. LACK OF AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT WITHOUT PROPER RATIFICATION

While the Board has invited members to a virtual meeting and comment period, participation in a Zoom session does not constitute approval or ratification where the governing documents require broader member consent.

Providing an opportunity for comment does not expand the Board’s authority. If the proposed revisions alter substantive rights or governance structures under the Declaration, implementation without proper ratification may be viewed as exceeding the Board’s lawful authority.

The Board’s authority to adopt policies is not unlimited. Actions that materially rewrite governance frameworks without the required approval process risk being deemed ultra vires and therefore subject to challenge.

V. RETROACTIVE OR PREMATURE ENFORCEMENT RISK

I also want to clearly state concerns regarding any attempt to implement or enforce provisions prior to lawful adoption.

Specifically:

• Adoption or application of new enforcement mechanisms before proper ratification could render penalties or actions unenforceable.

• Recording notices of non-compliance, imposing new administrative fees, or initiating enforcement under unratified policies may create liability exposure for the Association.

• Enforcement actions taken without clear authority increase the likelihood of disputes, including challenges based on ultra vires action.

It is essential that enforcement remain grounded solely in properly adopted and currently valid governing documents.

VI. GOVERNANCE AND FIDUCIARY CONSIDERATIONS

Directors serve in a fiduciary capacity and must act within the authority granted by the governing documents and applicable law.

Proceeding with a broad rewrite of governance documents under the characterization of legislative compliance, without proper ratification and proper notice, may be viewed as overstepping the Board’s authority and engaging in ultra vires conduct. Adoption of policies beyond that authority increases the risk of:

• Governance disputes within the community;

• Challenges to enforcement actions; and

• Requests for injunctive relief to prevent implementation.

VII. REQUEST THAT OVERREACH CEASE TO LIMIT COMMUNITY COSTS

Given the scope of the concerns outlined above, I respectfully request that the Board immediately cease further advancement or implementation of governance changes that exceed clear legislative necessity or the authority granted under the existing CCRs.

Continuing to pursue a comprehensive rewrite without proper ratification risks unnecessary legal exposure and increases costs to the community, including attorney fees, administrative expenses, and potential disputes that could otherwise be avoided through a procedurally sound approach.

Pausing the current trajectory will allow the Board to reassess the scope of the proposed updates, clearly identify mandatory legislative requirements, and ensure that community resources are not expended on actions that may later be challenged as ultra vires or invalid.

VIII. REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION AND CONFIRMATION

In the interest of sound governance and transparency, I respectfully request:

• Identification of the specific Texas statutes or legislative provisions that require modification of the existing CCRs.

• A clear delineation between mandatory legislative updates and discretionary policy changes.

• An explanation of why certain legislative items have been selectively included while others have not.

• Confirmation that no new enforcement mechanisms, administrative fees, or recording of non-compliance notices will occur until the adoption process complies fully with the governing documents and any required community ratification has occurred.

My intent in raising these concerns is to ensure that any updates adopted by the Association are legally sound, procedurally proper, and reflective of the authority granted under the existing governing framework.

I will be sending this via certified mail to the associations official PO Box.

Respectfully,

Jake Christensen