Two questions on the 2023 “Bent Tree Community Vision Survey” pertained to new development and/or the campground parcel*. 1438 surveys were sent out and 706 were returned.

Here are the two development-related questions, along with the predefined set of answers, and the percentages that chose the respective options:

Which statement accurately represents your household when it comes to growth in the form of new development for Bent Tree:

• I would like to see a nice balance between greenspace and growth in the community – 79%
• Bent Tree should declare all future properties as “greenspace” and not support any more building/growth – 11%
• I would like to see Bent Tree support efforts to develop more housing and grow in the future – 10%

For many years, the Bent Tree Board of Directors have been entertaining options for a development partnership of the 28-acre parcel of property the community owns at the intersection of Cove Road and Bent Tree Drive (commonly known as “The Campground Property”). Ideally, the Board would like to find a partner that will fund the development and operation of the venture creating a small to no investment for Bent Tree. The purpose of the development would be for a means to generate a consistent revenue stream for the community. Which of the following options do you believe would be the best use of the property:

• Residential Housing Development – 27%
• Do not do anything with the property, leave in its existing condition – 24%
• Camping/Glamping Park – 13%
• RV Park – 13%
• Assisted Living Facility – 9%
• Retails/Gas Station – 8%
• Storage Facility – 5%
• Other (Park/Recreation Center/Fitness Center) – 1%

Note:  in the campground-specific question, 73% did not select the “Residential Housing Development” option. 

* At the very end of the survey, a third question asked “In order to generate revenue for capital improvements to Bent Tree infrastructure, please check all options your household would support (multiple selections permitted).” The first option was “Create a partnership to develop the 28-acre property (often referred to as The Campground Property) at Cove Road-Bent Tree Road in order to generate additional revenue without adding expenses“. 72% responded that they would support the option and that has been used as the rationalization for the proposed Creekside development. Note: the question included the caveat “without adding expenses”.  The proposed Creekside development does not fit that criteria. There would be added upfront capital expenses, added ongoing operational expenses, and future capital expenses directly related to Creekside at Bent Tree . 

The voting deadline, for the current CC&R amendment proposal, is two weeks from today. If you vote online, you can cast your ballot through June 30th. If you’re voting by mail, your paper ballot has to be received by Votegrity (in Seattle, WA) by June 30th.

For this post, I’m using the same number of Creekside homes (53) that was used in the “Creekside at Bent Tree Proforma Projections” document.

• If the proposed CC&R amendment passes, then both the amendment and the May 27th Board declaration will be recorded in the Pickens County land records.
• So, at that point, the campground parcel will be subject to the BTCI CC&Rs.
• According to the FAQs provided to BTCI property owners, “Initially, Bent Tree will sell the property to [the proposed developer]…”
• BTCI is a common law owners association, not subject to the Georgia Property Owners Association Act.
• Under BTCI’s governing documents, the BTCI Board of Directors doesn’t have the authority to waive assessments and mandatory fees, not even for developers. This has been stated over and over throughout the years. Note – In the past, I asked about the wording in the CC&Rs Article IV, Section 5(c), and was told that it only applies to lots going through a legal collection process (i.e. foreclosure, sale under power, proceeding in lieu of foreclosure, etc.), so it shouldn’t apply in this scenario.
• The only lots that are exempt from assessments and mandatory fees are those owned by BTCI.
• So, if the campground does get sold to a developer, and does get platted into 53 separate lots, then the developer would initially be responsible for paying 53 unimproved assessments and 53 unimproved AGUFs.
• As homes are built over time, the developer would have to pay improved assessments and improved AGUFs on the lots with houses (until sold to the new homeowners and it becomes the new homeowner’s responsibility) and continue paying unimproved assessments/AGUFs on the remaining vacant lots.
• The “Creekside at Bent Tree Proforma Projections” document doesn’t account for any revenue from the developer having to pay any unimproved assessments and unimproved AGUFs. It only shows “Assessment Fees by Year Per Home”.
• From the “Town Hall Questions” document: “21. When do assessments start of Creekside residents? At closing”.

My conclusion is that no one (including the proposed developer) has anticipated that, under the BTCI CC&Rs, developer-owned unimproved lots should be subject to unimproved assessments and unimproved AGUFs, just like every other unimproved lot owned by anyone other than BTCI. And, the developer should be required to pay the related improved assessments and improved AGUFs on any homes (i.e. spec homes) that have not been sold to new homeowners. And, that in future CC&R amendment ballots, the developer would be entitled to one vote for every lot they owned (initially 53 votes). If I’ve got this wrong, hopefully someone will let me know and I will be glad to post an update.

Towards the very end of the May 27th BTCI board meeting, the board of directors voted to amend the agenda; they added an item to approve a declaration that will ensure that the campground property is subjected to the BTCI CC&Rs in the event the property is ever sold to a developer. It is my understanding that, if the currently proposed amendment does get approved by the property owners, the May 27th declaration of the BOD will get recorded in the county land records at the same time that the CC&R amendment gets recorded.

That got me pondering… and, I did come to a conclusion. I still need to figure out the best way to explain it, so check back tomorrow for Part 2.

The online voting platform, used by Bent Tree, allows a property owner to change their vote after it has been cast.

The Creekside information provided to Bent Tree property owners says “The sale of the campground property will bring Bent Tree over $500,000 to begin to meet these needs.” The needs that are mentioned are lake dredging, upgrades / improvements to Club Tamarack, replacement and / or upgrades to the swimming pools, golf course improvements, and repairs / improvements to the roads.

There is nothing in the proposed CC&R amendment that states where any proceeds from a sale of the campground would actually go; nothing is earmarked. It may be this board’s intention to deposit the funds into general capital, or into the various capital reserve accounts, but there is no guarantee. If the proposed property sale does go through it seems as if whoever is on the board, at the time of the sale, could decide to put the funds into the operating budget and not use it for any of “these needs”.

Also, if the backlog of needed maintenance and replacement items is so extensive, why would the board use any of those funds for anything except prioritized maintenance/replacement? Upgrades/improvements can wait (or the property owners can vote to approve a special assessment for specific improvements, as already allowed in the existing CC&Rs). Just my two cents…

Last Tuesday’s post was about the current CC&R amendment vote. The only thing that the property owners are voting on is whether or not to give the BTCI Board of Directors the authority to sell the Campground Property for the development of a community of approximately 53 single family homes. 

The details (other than the number of single family homes) of the proposed development are NOT part of the ballot; the proposed developer, the proposed sales price, the proposed fitness center, the proposed walking trail, the proposed wastewater system, the timeframe for potential build out, the speculative proforma, etc. are NOT part of the ballot.

I have spoken with property owners who mistakenly thought that Exhibit A (the exhibit that was not included with the ballot information but is now available on the BTCI website) must contain all of those specifics. As previously posted here, Exhibit A is simply the legal description of the parcel (as recorded decades ago).