Homeowners at Bent Creek Townhomes in Nolensville have a month to tear down their security cameras or start paying fines, after their HOA sent out a letter banning nearly all exterior surveillance devices except doorbell cameras pointed strictly at a resident's own front door.
The policy letter, sent to residents on Friday, spells out that only doorbell cameras are allowed going forward, and even those come with strings attached, according to WSMV. The cameras can capture only the homeowner's own residence, cannot be pointed toward neighboring homes, must not alter a home's appearance in a way that clashes with the community's architectural standards, cannot interfere with common elements, and cannot damage the building exterior. The HOA told residents the rules are meant to preserve a consistent look across the townhomes and to protect neighbors' privacy.
Anyone who hasn't taken down a non-doorbell camera within the next month will start facing fines, the station's report notes. Bent Creek sits in Nolensville, in Williamson County, just outside Nashville.
A Longtime Resident Weighs In
Bobby Blevins, who has lived in the neighborhood since 2014, installed a new camera on his garage just a couple of weeks before the policy came down — and he now plans to comply and take it back off. Still, he told the outlet that most people put cameras outside their houses for security and personal safety, and he thinks homeowners should be able to keep cameras on their entranceways to record activity around their own properties.
Blevins also pointed out that homeowners are the ones responsible for the upkeep of entranceways, garages and front doors, even though he said the HOA technically owns the exteriors of the townhomes. Not every resident sees it his way, though — per the same account, other homeowners in Bent Creek support the new rules precisely because they make the townhome exteriors look more uniform.
Cameras Already Helped Solve a Crime
The debate isn't just theoretical. Camera footage from Bent Creek residents previously helped police catch two people wanted for aggravated assault after a stolen-vehicle incident, and Nolensville police had asked people in the area to check their own footage earlier in September as they worked the case.
Will Anderson Wainwright, another Bent Creek resident, doesn't have security cameras at his own home, but he said neighbors' cameras helping catch the two wanted suspects made him feel safer. He called the HOA's decision unusual, noting that state and local officials elsewhere are actively adding security cameras to prevent and solve crimes rather than taking them away. Wainwright said he supports letting homeowners install the cameras they want, including doorbell cameras that can help protect package deliveries — though he acknowledged he'd feel uncomfortable if a neighbor's camera were pointed at his own bedroom window.
Management Company Stays Quiet
Ghertner and Company, which manages the Bent Creek HOA, had not responded to multiple requests for comment about the policy change or about what, if any, replacement security measures might be considered, according to the report.
The dispute in Nolensville arrives amid a broader wave of friction between homeowners associations and residents over surveillance technology. Nationally, camera company Flock Safety says its automatic license plate readers are now mounted at entrances to more than 6,000 communities, according to Inman, with some associations paying between $2,000 and $3,000 per camera annually for the service. A YouGov survey cited by the outlet found 46% of roughly 20,000 U.S. adults opposed license plate readers in their communities, while 38% supported them.
Some Central Florida HOAs have taken the opposite approach from Bend Creek, installing Flock license-plate cameras at neighborhood entrances, per ClickOrlando. Elsewhere, the reverse fight has played out: in Brentwood, city officials moved to remove Flock cameras from public streets after mistakenly approving an HOA's surveillance permit, according to The Mercury News.
Camera disputes between homeowners and their associations have also landed in court elsewhere. National Law Review reports that in Byrd v. Fat City Condo Owners Association, a jury sided with the association in June 2024, finding no discrimination and that it had complied with North Carolina's condominium law in imposing $73,000 in fines. A separate case, Reiner, over an HOA's denial of a Ring camera on privacy grounds, settled and was dismissed in November 2024, while another pending case, Navarro, involves residents who say they bought Ring cameras over security concerns only to be told to remove them.
For now, Bent Creek homeowners are left weighing the HOA's uniform-exterior and privacy rationale against the safety benefits some neighbors say their cameras have already provided.
