A Response to the Post about the Leasing Amendment Vote

Published: September 22, 2025

This message is written in response to a recent posting made by a property owner of a home located in Rolling Creek Ranch. Customarily, members of the Board do not individually or collectively respond to public comments by property owners. However, in this case, the comments made pertain to an on-going legal matter and were made public during a period in which a neighborhood residential election is occurring. Given this matter has now entered into a legal dispute, we are challenged in our ability to respond fully and we assure you that the legal principles involved encompass your individual property owner rights which we are valiantly seeking to preserve. However, we will attempt to clarify some of the points made in this most recent and public statement.

The pursuit of a supplement to our CCRs for purposes of excluding short-term rentals represents an approach that has been adopted by residential neighborhoods across the country including Granbury. Quite honestly, the emergence of Air BNBs, VRBOs, and other forms of short-term rentals occurred subsequent to the establishment of many neighborhood covenants. For this reason, these documents now require a legal modification in order to restrict the usage of these form of rentals. The voting results cited by the plaintiff are incorrect. In fact, a total of 214 votes were cast with 191 residents voting in favor of this initiative. This voting result shows that, of those residents who voted, the vast majority (over 8 to 1) agreed that short-term rentals should not be allowed in RCR.

The plaintiff suggests in her memo that her initiative to be “grandfathered” represents a fair and reasonable approach. We respectfully disagree with this conclusion. How could we (as a Board) offer a supplement to the CCRs for which the vast majority of residents approved/ratified and then authorize an exception to that voted position? If one exception is made, then other exceptions will be pursued which would then potentially expose the Association to additional legal liabilities if we chose to deny those requests. The position of the neighborhood was forcefully made in this vote - RCR does not want short-term leasing.

The result of this initiative is that the plaintiff is still entitled to lease her home for periods of 6 months or longer. Her freedom to pursue a leasing arrangement for her home has not been adversely impacted; simply the duration of the leasing term has changed. In Thursday’s Candidate Forum, the concept of “freedom” was referenced frequently. That concept is an important one since neighborhoods, as documented in their covenants, have the right to amend those covenants from time to time when it is in the best interests of the entire community - not the interests of a single individual. As members of the current Board, we encourage all residents to ensure their elected Board representatives adhere to this basic principle.

Regrettably, since this matter has now become so public and is an on-going legal matter, we cannot provide any further discussion without potentially compromising the Association’s legal rights (which are your rights as property owners in this neighborhood). We will attempt to provide periodic updates to the extent permitted by our legal counsel.

Click here to download and read the A Response to the Post about the Leasing Amendment Vote (1)