This document contains a deleted article and associated comments from an online forum discussing issues with a homeowners association (HOA) in Wyckford Commons, Pennsylvania. The article describes homeowners being fined without proper notification for violations of changing pet rules. Commenters discuss legal rights of homeowners and the lack of transparency from the HOA board. One commenter maps out alleged undisclosed land issues and environmental contamination near the development that may be motivating overly restrictive HOA rules.

1. Deleted Article Commentary
Comment(s) from the following article were removed from the article's webpage in November, 2016:
http://www.montgomerynews.com/articles/2013/09/06/perkasie_news_herald/opinion/doc521d832d00e
ec320319487.txt
As this has happened numerous times over the past several years in response to public discussion about
the issues at hand, the comments were saved and are copied below.
Note: Some of the analysis-based comments regarding the more serious topics in the below thread
reflect information based on research in its preliminary stages. However, while certain small details
may have since been amended based upon continued acquired knowledge, the big picture has remained
unchanged.
Also, it appears that this Perkasie News Herald opinion letter was taken offline entirely. The following
was able to be obtained from Google's cached version of said page:
Opinion LETTER: Sellersville homeowners seek relief from association
Published: Friday, September 06, 2013
To the Editor: Imagine you buy a new home, a condominium. At the closing you are given copies of
the bylaws, rules and regulations. The most recent regulations state that you can have two pets within
your unit, provided that they are registered with the condominium association. “Great!” you think and
you move into your new home with your two pets. Years pass, and one day you receive a letter from
the association imposing a fine for having “too many pets.” You inquire about this letter and are
informed that the executive board of managers had some time ago passed a resolution reducing the
allowed number of pets from two to one. You ask the board why you never received any notification
about the change. The board’s response is evasive, and instead it insists that you must pay the fine.
Over the following months the fines continue, until they total hundreds of dollars. The most recent
letter you receive makes the following threat: “… if the issue of non-compliance remains unresolved,
then the association may, at its option, turn this matter over to their attorney to seek injunctive relief.”
The association is trying to force you to get rid of one of your beloved pets. You are appalled by the
board’s efforts and attempt to organize homeowners to change the pet rule. You distribute fliers within
the community and begin talking to other homeowners. As a result of your efforts, you receive a crass
and outrageous phone message from one of the board members. He states that your efforts are “idiotic,”
that you have no permission to go door to door, that he will contact the board and see if “… we can get
you a fine …” and that he intends to contact the township because “… you went door to door soliciting
without registering …” This phone message is a failed attempt at intimidation. The heavy-handedness
of the board does not end here. As you speak to other homeowners, you discover that in many cases the
imposition of fines and/or fees by the board does not comport with state law and/or the association’s
own bylaws. State law says that a unit owners’ association may “[i]mpose charges for late payment of
assessments and, after notice and an opportunity to be heard, levy reasonable fines for violations of the
declaration, bylaws and rules and regulations of the association.” However, homeowners have received
erroneous fines, received fines without advanced notice, received warnings and/or fines for alleged
“violations” of some bylaw without any evidence, received fines without being notified by certified
letter, as required by the bylaws. You wonder — how can the board of managers seem to act with

2. impunity, and who holds them accountable for violations of state law and their own bylaws? Back to
the pet issue: In 1992, the Borough of Carnegie, part of the Pittsburgh metro area, enacted an ordinance
limiting the number of domestic pets which a person could keep within the borough to a total of five.
Violators of the ordinance were subject to fines and forfeiture of their pets. The ordinance was
challenged in court, and in 1994, a Pennsylvania Appeals Court struck down the ordinance. The
appellant asserted that the “ordinance improperly sets arbitrary limits on the number of pets a person
can own and creates a presumption of health or safety risk based solely on the number of pets owned.”
The court agreed. If current state law prevents municipalities from passing legislation that limits
ownership of pets based solely on numbers, it would seem to me that our association — or any
homeowner’s association — should consider using, or be legally bound by, the same logical reasoning.
The Wyckford Mews has many wonderful people who take pride in their homes and in being a
homeowner. Many of us are attempting to bring about changes that will make the Mews a homeowner
friendly — and pet friendly — community. If you have a story about a heavy-handed association,
please share it with us at the following email address: WyckfordMewsHomeowners@gmail.com
COMMENTS
Harold L. Rosenberger • 3 years ago
There are many rights we have in this country that cannot be wavied by agreement. Just to give a few
examples:
• Employees Can’t Waive Their Right To Overtime Pay
• Labor Agreements Cannot Waive Constitutional Rights
• Parent cannot waive Child Support
• A Postnup Does Not Waive Spousal Rights To 401(K)
• Employees Cannot Waive Right to Class Actions
• In general, a person “cannot agree to waive their rights under the law”.
I'm a homeowner and I own my condo unit. I own the space and elements that are defined in the Condo
declaration. I'm not a lawyer, but based on the court ruling from 1994 that prevents municipalities from
passing legislation that limits ownership of pets based solely on numbers, I have a right to have as
many pets as I desire, provided they are not a nuisance to the community. I do not accept the notion that
the Board of Managers can tell me how many pets I may have within a home that I own. I did not
waive this right merely because I purchased a condominium and implicitly agreed to its declaration and
bylaws. I pay my taxes, I pay my monthly association fee and I'll stand firm on my rights as a
homeowner. The burden instead is on the Board of Managers to insure that they they act in a ethical
manner, and follow state law and their own bylaws before imposing fines on a homeowner.
Harold L. Rosenberger
Sellersville, PA 18960
whaddajoke • 3 years ago
"I'm a homeowner and I own my condo unit."
You sure about that?
If residents of that community would spend less time whining about petty BS and invest more in
attempting to understand the bigger picture, they might uncover the motivating factors behind the
actions of the BOD. They are all as much to blame as the residents on that Board for everything going

3. down in that development.
Harold L. Rosenberger • 3 years ago
whaddajoke -
Please explain what you mean. Am I sure about what - I'm not a homeowner? My name is on the deed.
And what is the is big picture? You must know. Please explain.
And what can we blame on the homeowners? Please enlighten me. You sound very knowledgeable.
Harold L. Rosenberger
Wyckford Mews
Sellersville, PA 18960
whaddajoke Harold L. Rosenberger • 3 years ago
I'd be more than happy to explain in detail. However, 1) I have attempted this numerous times
and I am met with blank stares and silence, followed by a change of subject and no future
acknowledgement of any of the issues discussed, and 2) your esteemed BOD hired an attorney
to advise me that if I continue to discuss the information I spent the last year and a half
uncovering, they would take legal action against me. You're on your own now.
Harold L. Rosenberger whaddajoke • 3 years ago
whaddajoke:
I'm totally at a loss as to your point. You asked me if I was sure I'm a home owner. I am, as my
name is on the deed. Also, I'm just attempting to understand the "big picture", as you stated.
After all, you are the one that brought up the "big picture" issue.
If you have nothing more constructive to add to the conversation, then I guess that's it.
Good luck to you.
Harold L. Rosenberger
whaddajoke Harold L. Rosenberger • 3 years ago
Yes, that is it. Good luck to you as well.
HOAsstink • 3 years ago
typical HOA nonsense. This is what happens when you give people a little power it goes straight to
their heads. I work in municipal govt and wish you could hear the calls I get from people on HOA
boards wanting the municipality to enforce THEIR by-laws and fine someone or order the removal of
an "unapproved" tree or some other petty issue. HOA's are usually retired seniors with nothing to do
but stare out the window and complain about petty things. I grew up in a dev w/a HOA and the 1
member of that board used to tell residents what to plant around their houses based on HIS preferences,
because he was a horticulture professor and HE knew best. Nothing but busy bodies who enjoy telling
others what to do and how to live.I'll nev live in a development w/a HOA ever again!
An Honest Evaluation • 3 years ago
I'm an owner in the Wyckford Mews, and I believe that the practices of the current board are both
unethical and illegal. A few things-

4. ...there are currently over fifty!, separate documents with rules and regulations at this community,
...the board issues rules without consulting the community. When I inquired as to when a particular rule
was voted on by the community I was told by the president that I didn't get to vote, and that the board
can do whatever it wants.
...fines are being assessed at the maximum rate stated in the rules and regulations with complete
disregard for the graduated system of first a warning letter being issued and then smaller fines
progressing to larger ones. The fines are also being issued for reasons that do not violate the rules and
regulations and for rules that noone voted on other than the board. When I inquired as to why this was
the case, the management company (First Service- formerly the Wentworth Group) replied that the
board wasn't going to follow the rules.
...the delinquency rate is so high because of this massive blanketing of violations that the percentage of
delinquent units to total units is higher than most banks will approve mortgages for.
Anyone with common sense knows that the responsibility of the board is to act in the best interests of
the community. The current board is acting outside its scope of authority and hopefully someone can
help. The owners are not whining about a few petty things that only affect a few people! There are real
problems here....many problems too numerous to list in one article.
FYI • 3 years ago
To expand upon the above commentary, the below map was posted earlier this week to the following
forum, which talks a lot about the "big picture" issues:
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/quakertown-pa/TPEQLOCLMKDU9C174
However, it was deleted soon after (something that has occurred numerous times w/ online forums that
discuss this issue). It is being reposted in response to questions pertaining to the underlying issues
within the affected residential subdivisions (i.e. Mews at Wyckford Commons). Note that this is a
rough approximation of the exact mapping. FOIA requests have been filed with Perkasie Borough and
East Rockhill Township regarding specifics. However, FOIA requests with Sellersville Borough were
futile, so I anticipate these will be as well.
The aforementioned realignment of streets in the Sellersville and Perkasie areas is outlined on the
below map:
http://s24.postimg.org/nkhgg33gl/image.jpg
Colored land parcels with white writing represent land ownership and street designations prior to the
shift (circa 1900). Black streets with black writing represent positioning as it is today. Note the
following movements:
- Diamond/Main shifts left (SW).
- The Pleasant Spring Creek shifts left (SW).
- Walnut (Route 152) shifts left (SW).
- Callowhill Road shifts left (SW).
- Branch Road shifts down (SE).
- Sellersville Borough line shifts down (SE) in the northern and southern portions of town and right
(NE) on the eastern boarder.
*Not shown: Original positioning of the "East Branch of the Perkiomen Creek" (as it is called; Perkasie

5. Borough history books don't seem to agree with that name) was south of both its current position and
positioning on the older base map. With this, said "creek" was shifted up (NW), as was Walnut Street in
Sellersville Borough.
The southwestern shifts allowed for parcel ownership in the "Selsie Village" area to be realloated in a
northeastern direction away from the condemned tract(s) of land:
http://s2.postimage.org/5ba9k0ke1/image.jpg
(Tracts 3 and 4 [inhabitable] represent the "new" 1 and 2 [uninhabitable], moved back/away from the
uranium facility).
This created an evenly proportional square with (4) 26-acre "barriers" around the uranium facility:
http://s8.postimg.org/olsrpr279/image.jpg
This also created some serious issues with assumed land ownership, as the tract that the majority of the
Mews is built upon is not the Slotter tract. Rather, it is the tract to the left (Francis), which was
condemned and sold to the Federal Land Bank in 1932 and then resold to American Machine and
Metals in 1956. And yes, the developers were aware of this.
The realignment of the Wyckford tract, when overlaid on the older map, is undetectable if you
proportionally enlarge the 2013 map, which will make it overlay perfectly (no coincidence that things
were done in a perfect square). But when you expand that view and see what effect that has on a 2 mile
radius, it becomes evident that something is very wrong. Using the few known unchanged landmarks
between 1891 and 2013 as direct overlay points, the attached map was created.
And in case this was missed previously, the DOE confirmed that the American Machine and Metals
facility in Sellersville was at one time the producer of atomic fuel, which makes perfect sense when
considering the amount of uranium that was left there. However, that adds a whole new element to the
contamination of the surrounding grounds--and perhaps explains why the USEPA refused to discuss
anything relating to the area on the AMETEK property termed as an "old stone sump" whereby waste
was discarded. Said area is located just feet from residential homes in Wyckford Commons and is in
line with the groundwater flow that travels directly underneath the Mews.
Again, this is a horrific and disgusting situation. I encourage all residents in that area to investigate this
in depth and solicit help from any group/organization willing to assist.
Langley8811 FYI • 3 years ago
::crickets::
As was expected after seeing how this community has handled these issues. I'm sure, though, if
the above post was a rant about a new fining system based on the size of a pet's turds or
something equally as asinine (in all respects), there'd be a flurry of feedback and a rally
organized. And the next post, if any, will undoubtedly be about something similar that makes its
way to the top of a very puzzling list of priorities.
My heart goes out to the few people there who actually care about things that matter.

6. carolane88 • 3 years ago
If you live in an HOA and they change the rules according to their own governing documents, live with
it. Regardless of whether State, city, or local law says one thing the HOA can set rules and covenants.
For example, the city allows folks to paint their home most any color, an HOA can restrict colors, the
city can permit cars to be parked in the driveway but an HOA can restrict or make it a violation, the city
can permit a tv dish to be place just about any place but an HOA can place restrictions on size and
location. The pet issue, if the covenants are changed to one pet, so be it, however, it would seem those
that feel compelled to have more than one pet should be grandfathered in, future pet ownership is the
issue. This would be totally legal so stop the complaining, you live in an HOA, you knew they can
make rules and your dogs are no more important than other restrictions, in fact this is one restriction the
community most likely benefit by.
PerkRes carolane88 • 3 years ago
Carolane88, really? Live with it? Perhaps you've forgotten that this is America and IF HOA's
would like to amend bylaws, there must be a formal process that includes community
notification. The author of the letter (who clearly has done a lot of research, suggestive that
his/her claims are true) has CLEARLY stated that he/she lived in the community PRIOR to the
change of bylaws and is NOW being fined for a 'violation' that he/she did not know existed. I
am not a resident of Wyckford Commons but that CLEARLY sounds like a situation where 2
pets should be grandfathered in .. and the fines should stop (along with any pursuant harassing
threats/phone calls).
My husband and I live in the area and plan to down-size soon. We have considered a condo in
this area, but WILL NOT even consider Wyckford Commons if this is the type of heavy-handed
forum that the HOA seeks to employ. The fact that I would not consider purchasing in Wyckford
Commons (how many other people have read this letter thinking the same thing??) should
worry ALL current owners because it will ultimately adversely affect your property values.
Yes Carolane88, I am very familiar with a HOA (we also own a home in a resort community in
Virginia); but our HOA is deliberate in representing ALL community members, taking careful
steps in following bylaws which address the availability of open meetings, access to the board
& discussion forums, they follow transparent bylaws, have supporting data for any violation and
have an appeal process, and will often consult our county officials when changes to bylaws are
proposed.
Clearly, there are several Wyckford Commons residents who feel paralyzed within their own
community. Hopefully, all affected will soon realize that if they do not become active against a
heavy-handed, 'fine happy' HOA .. their property values will slip downward (if they haven't
already).
Pinalian carolane88 • 3 years ago
Carolane - you have it exactly wrong, and should appreciate the following clarification. NO HOA may
impose any laws or rules that are in violation of local, State or Federal Law. Period. For example, an
HOA could say they don't allow wheelchair ramps because they don't like how they look (or any other
reason for that matter) but they would be in violation of the Federal ADA (Americans with Disabilities
Act) - BIG time, for doing so..... Although a homeowner may be free to paint their house a color, there
is no "right" to paint your house pink if it is expressly forbidden in the HOA Bylaws. Why? There is a
difference in these types of home ownership. Because in an HOA/Condo, the exterior of the home is
not technically yours. Its part of the Limited Common Facility which is defined by the Declarations and
Bylaws. Your dues help pay for their upkeep. Those color schemes and whether one may have a

7. satellite dish and the like are spelled out quite clearly in the Bylaws. Its when folks with your type of
authority and uninformed "opinion" sit on HOA Boards, that the "fun" begins for the rest of us. Please,
do your homework. Become genuinely informed. Then, comment.
Shotgun2go • 3 years ago
Just saying....carolane88, I think you have your name wrong. Cruella de Vil would be more suitable!
carolaneii • 3 years ago
If you live in an HOA and they change the rules according to their own governing documents, live with
it. Regardless of whether State, city, or local law says one thing the HOA can set rules and covenants.
For example, the city allows folks to paint their home most any color, an HOA can restrict colors, the
city can permit cars to be parked in the driveway but an HOA can restrict or make it a violation, the city
can permit a tv dish to be place just about any place but an HOA can place restrictions on size and
location. The pet issue, if the covenants are changed to one pet, so be it, however, it would seem those
that feel compelled to have more than one pet should be grandfathered in, future pet ownership is the
issue. This would be totally legal so stop the complaining, you live in an HOA, you knew they can
make rules and your dogs are no more important than other restrictions, in fact this is one restriction the
community most likely benefit by.
ChristellTremaine carolaneii • 3 years ago
Wow carolaneii, you sound like a bitter board member. Just like an HOA is entitled to change
their laws, the people who live there are entitled to their rights. You said it yourself-"...should be
grandfathered in". That was the whole point of the issue regarding the pet concerns of people
who have been living there for the past decade with two pets...So what are you talking about?
No one cares about your irrelevant examples. It is obvious the things going on at this place are a
lot more significant than paint on a wall, parked cars, or TV dishes. So why don't YOU stop
complaining? It's about time the people who live there speak up and do something about the
ridiculous fines, phone calls and letters. It is life at Wyckford Mews, not lock up at Wyckford
Penitentiary.
yatzey • 3 years ago
what losers!!!!!! power hungry losers. awful...they should outlaw associations everywhere...who do
these people think they are....its a disgrace to the owners of these homes...........what the heck is this???
communism>??
Jennifer N • 3 years ago
I lived in that HOA for several years and mailed a complaint to the board thru the management office
that was ignored and was not taken seriously even when I brought it up at the annual meeting, which
had to do with my neighbor's activities affecting the ability to sell my unit. In fact, the complaint letter
was not presented to all members of the board. I was relieved to move out of that community because I
felt that people were focusing on the wrong issues and certain members of the community were
discriminated against by being fined more than others or their concerns were ignored.

8. galacticcannibal • 3 years ago
I once owned and lived in a condo "on the Beach" in SoCalif. It was an idillac location. But it was a
HOA and turned into a hell with BOD's actions . who acted like "little Hitlers". After a decade of
constant hassle we sold up and left. Never ever would I live in a HOA again based on that experience.
Eric West • 3 years ago
Can they enter your home and count your pets? If not, please lie. This is one of those cases where it
may be unethical but perfectly acceptable to lie. I certainly would knowing how silly such a rule is.
People obey to their detriment, these silly rules imposed by control freaks. Do your own thing, folks.
Jennifer N Eric West • 3 years ago
I tried that - I did not register my pets there and someone "reported" me so that I got a letter
from the management office. There are some really sick people living there that will spy on you
and try to find things you are doing wrong.
“Fair use” is supported by Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.