Enforcement Comparison
Three removals. Three outcomes.
One fine schedule that doesn't exist in writing.
All three occurred in Martin's Landing within a similar timeframe. The property with the most documentation, the most process, and the most compliance received the highest fine.
All three of these removals occurred within Martin's Landing within a similar timeframe. No written fine schedule has ever been produced to explain the differences in outcome. These are the documented facts.
Before
After
Reduced to $900 "as a courtesy for taking the time to appeal"
The written fine explanation did not address the arborist report, existing application, or two site visits.
Before
After
No application, no arborist, no documentation
1 tree removed vs. 3 at Property 1
Before
After
Trees described as diseased and dying per public post
6-10 trees removed vs. 3 at Property 1
What this shows
The property that followed every step filed an ARC application, hired a certified arborist, participated in two site visits, obtained conditional approval, and removed only the trees the arborist deemed a safety hazard received the highest fine of the three.
The neighboring property filed nothing, hired no arborist, and received no approval. Their tree was removed on the exact same day, by the exact same contractor, on the same street. They were fined $300 and told the removal "likely would have been approved" anyway. Property 1 was fined $1,800 and told their trees "would not have been approved" despite an active ARC application on file.
During the recorded Tier 1 hearing, the reduction was described as a "courtesy for taking the time to make the appeal." Not because of the arborist report. Not because of the formal application. Not because of the documented hazard. A courtesy.
No written fine schedule has been produced. No explanation for the $600 per tree figure has ever been given. No factor related to compliance was acknowledged as mitigating. The Board voted to uphold the $900 fine on July 28, 2026. Case closed.
Consider what it means for the HOA to write that the neighboring removal "likely would have been approved." On what basis? The tree was not near a structure. There are no photos documenting its condition. No arborist ever assessed it. No application was filed. No evaluation criteria were identified in the notice or provided afterward.
In writing, the HOA stated that a removal they never reviewed "likely would have been approved," while stating that a removal backed by a formal application, two site visits, and a licensed arborist's safety assessment "would not have been approved." Both conclusions were delivered by the same person, 13 days apart, with no published criteria cited for either.
The materials produced by MLF do not explain why the case with the most documentation and advance process received the highest fine.
Still unanswered
The fine letter states our trees "would not have been approved." We have asked why, in writing, multiple times since May 2026. At the Tier 2 Board hearing on July 28, 2026, we were told the ARC would provide a written explanation of their reasoning.
That explanation has not arrived. No criteria. No documentation. No reason.
Despite repeated requests and a statement at the Tier 2 hearing that a written explanation would be provided, we have not received one.
The Fine Letters
Names and addresses redacted. Both letters signed by the same managing agent, sent 13 days apart.
Phone 770-992-6432 • app.townsq.io
May 15, 2026
Homeowner
Address redacted
Roswell, GA 30076
Re: Address redacted
ACC Violation Fining Notice
Dear Homeowner:
The Architectural Review Committee and the Board of Directors recently reviewed the following architectural modifications that was initiated and/or completed without approval:
Per the Architectural Guidelines, Section 5A, "A homeowner shall seek ARC approval for all installation, construction, modification, or alteration of exterior items, structure, or significant landscape items."
All exterior modifications require prior written approval from the Architectural Review Committee. Our records indicate that we do not have an architectural application on file for this modification.
Erin Damiani, CAM
Homeside Properties Managing Agent
On Behalf of the Board of Directors for
Martin's Landing Foundation, Inc.
Phone 770-992-6432 • app.townsq.io
May 28, 2026
Homeowner
Address redacted
Roswell, GA 30076
Re: Neighboring property
Courtesy Notice - Architectural Violation
Dear Homeowner:
As a reminder the community guidelines were established for the betterment of our community and enjoyment of all owners. We would like to bring to your attention that during a recent review, it was noted that the following items need your attention:
Per the Architectural Guidelines, Section 5A, "A homeowner shall seek ARC approval for all installation, construction, modification, or alteration of exterior items, structure, or significant landscape items."
All exterior modifications require prior written approval from the Architectural Review Committee. Our records indicate that we do not have an architectural application on file for this modification.
Erin Damiani, CAM
Homeside Properties Managing Agent
On Behalf of the Board of Directors for
Martin's Landing Foundation, Inc.
Property 1: ARC application, arborist report, fine notice, and full appeal packet on file. | Property 2: Fine notice dated May 28, 2026; Google Maps Street View and post-removal photo on file. | Property 3: MLF Residents Hub Facebook post, July 8, 2026; archived separately.