Sure, I will abide by the new covenant if you pay for the fixture and an electrician to install it. If not, you can stick this covenant where the light don't shine.
Proposed Covenant Change
Lighting
To be presented at the Annual Meeting in July, members will receive a copy 30 days prior to the annual meeting.
67 comments:
This HOA seems to have a lot of RETROACTIVE covenants. Is it legal? Could be. But it certainly is very damaging to people. Especially for our elderly folks on fixed incomes. Not to mention the harassment it causes. We understand not wanting giant spot lights lighting up the whole block. But asking people to change a normal light fixture, instead of just the light bulb, seems excessive. Board might want to consider giving out 25 watt light bulbs similar to what they did with the backflow valves. Consider the LEAST expensive resolution for what is currently in place. What's wrong with trying to be proactive and kind. The changed covenants should apply only to new construction going forward.
I get a kick out of the words "not visible beyond the property line", I wonder what kind of fixture will allow this. LOL I can see a neighbors porch light two blocks away. Good luck with that one. I can see small claims court heating up on this one.
Yes that’s a tough one! That was part of our lighting complaint against us! Now with a back door light that shines straight down, nothing is lit up but the stairs! Makes it a little hard to make your way safely to our car!
What board will hold the hearing and the vote? The outgoing or the new BOT?
Thank you George for publishing this covenant proposal approved by the BOT this month. They were unwilling to make the text public initially, which is how the creation of this change began a year ago.
Like the proposal we saw last Jan., this is also a very poorly thought out proposal that immediately contradicts itself, and in so doing, becomes unenforceable.
1} Since the amount of "light pollution" was the stated concern, the obvious point from which to start is limiting wattage. 65 watts in a bright white bulb, is quite bright, and surely adequate for most exterior purposes. There are no wattage limits in the proposal.
2} The proposal says that all lights are to be directed straight down, but allows motion-sensor lights which never point downward, rarely have a covered bulb, and often have around 150 watt bulbs. Most exterior bulbs of this type are FLOODS, aimed to cover a large area, so not really fitting to the proposal's stated requirements. Limiting motion-sensors to a 10 minute span seems generous as well, and difficult to enforce.
3}Standard light bulbs are designed to light an area, floods a broad area, and "spots" a focused area. What we have seen in Surfside is that about 90% of homes have area lights at their entrances and parking. Many owners choose to leave entrance lights on during the evening when they are home, but at least as many turn them off when not needed. In 2021, many of us are aware of minimizing waste, and most of us enjoy the darkness at the beach, but usually have a flashlight in hand.
A year ago we were told that the BOT would leave the covenant unchanged, but set a lumens level to abide by at property lines. That never happened, and now we have yet another ridiculous proposal that seeks to tell owners what kind of fixtures they can use.
Most fixtures cover the bulb, but up to about 65 watts in a frosted box or valance is quite adequate screening of a standard bulb. There is no restriction on lights left on all night on a timer, where restrictions seem worth considering. But the most practical limitation and the simplest has somehow been overlooked - limiting wattage. 65 watts would probably be adequate for all exterior uses, and avoiding limitations about which fixtures are allowed is smart, and shows some respect for owner choices and needs.
Enforcement criteria needs to be simple, addressing a specific NEED. The written restriction needs to be clear and concise, and without contradictions. Such a covenant needs to take into account the NEEDS of the members, and avoid nitt-picky details that obscure the intended purpose. Conflict over enforcement generally comes from lacking clarity in the covenant language, and grey areas are NOT clearly enforceable.
Hey board, stick this where the sun don't shine!
Right on George!
Guess I'll start looking to move. This is so rediculous. I will not be changing my lights unless someone else is going to pay for it and install it. We need good lighting to keep us safe on our own property. If this goes through, I see a lot of lawsuit's in the future
First off my place last year sheds got broke into lost my motorcycle and plenty of damage was done THE MOR LIGHTTHE BETTER so were are you going with this bullshit rule less lighting then maybe surfside should consider pay there members back seeing that we pay plenty for year dues now.SO MORE LIGHTING IN MY YARD THE BETTER.
Does this apply to all of Surfside or only the west side as last time?
So they want less outdoor lighting, yet we have had 2 prowlers in less than a week, where is our 500,000 sheriff?
If you tag me for outdoor lighting, I will set up the biggest and brightest indoor light in my window and aim it up at J place. You cannot control what lighting is inside a home.
How we all could get back at olds, harris and delete just to name a few.
Get back at them! Make them pay!
You have freedom to do what you want!
We all need to talk to our neighbors and Call text or email everyone that you have contact information for to promote a large attendace at the Annual meeting and defete this piece of work. We can also make copies of this Proposed Ordinance and post them throughout the Penninsula. This worked last time the Board came up with this proposal. UNITE AND TALK TO YOUR NEIGHBORS !!!!!!!!!!
Well crime will go up! I would like to see them try to take my front porch light!!
Did anyone see the post on Facebook for 7 free boardroom chairs? They have replaced them with new ones and frankly there is nothing wrong with the old ones! What a waste of money! Take a look at the HOA Facebook page!
I don't understand that they are asking us to report prowlers but without good lighting we just can't see them!!
Is this ordinance for all Surfside Members? West side and East Side?? Or is this ordinance the same as the Tree Ordinance to keep the skies dark for J Placers on the west side only.
Covenents are for ALL members. If west side members must cut their trees, then
East side members must cut their trees. J Place members must cut their trees.
I know you folks don't care about facts, but the proposed lighting policy was brought to the board from a committee, so Olds and delete (lol), weren't responsible for the change. In fact, they both along with other trustees proposed putting it to the membership, something you all ask for.
Some members want it, some don't. Nobody wants you to walk to your car in the dark and nothing proposed would make it so you will. People also don't want to have their neighborhood lit up like the Vegas strip either.
Wait a minute anonymous 9:16! You mean to tell me that the members are going to vote on this covenant change? When was that decided? It’s clearly stated that the BOT can change the covenants from time to time, after a 30 day notice to the members and a public hearing.
Did I miss something?
Well they are supposed to tell members so let’s not thank them for finally do their job amendment 9
Maybe deLeest's and Clancy's Depends failed, and Williams' probably is full of food crumbs. Plus they probably need ones that sit higher than anyone else's in the building.
Kurt Olds is on that committee and he’s made it very well known how he doesn’t like lights! And Peggi Olds is on the Tree committee and I’d say she hates trees! Just an observation!
We should all find the brightest LED flashlights and walk up and down in front of the board members houses. As for the tree wrestler why not just dump your tree, brush and grass clippings in front of the HOA office. It's so over staffed that they certainly can mulch it up.
Maybe we need to find an protective bird so they can't touch our tree's!
9:16....The covenants require that the BOT present any proposed covenant change to the membership for review before any final approval is allowed. Yes, the Arch.Comm. wrote this proposed covenant change over several months, and came up with this mess of contradictions. The Board has approved it in this pitiful state, after assuring owners the original covenant would remain with only modest changes. Owners have the right to file complaints about neighbor's excessive lighting, and the HOA is obligated to address such situations. Both Olds and deLeest were involved with the development of the previous proposal, and current Board members have had the ability to alter the current proposal, but have approved it.
Why point you stupid ass light at us j placers? Ignorant ass hat....
Thake your issue up with the awesome board rather than just blame a group of people that everyone resents because it is trendy to create divisions. Get a hobby, I assume you are one of our overlybored retietees that like to make bitching a full time job.
deLest, Miss Peggy and Packman put the new lighting covenant together and took it to the Architectural Committee to do their dirty work. Miss Peggy also had the wrong trees cut around Seabreeze lake and blamed it on the Lands and Buildings Committee in violation of the shorelines laws. These are dishonest people doing dishonest things. They should not be allowed on any committee.
The arrogance that all members will now change out their lighting to please the J Placers places an "undue Burden" on the membership which will stand up in Court. Count on it.
For instance: I have two deck lights which are seldom on. They are not intrusive, but do not have shields to direct the light downward. In winter it is too cold on the deck to use them. In summer it is light anyway and they are not needed. So they have been on maybe 6 times in 15 years. Will I now be hounded to change them, by stalking jokers with binoculars who root out evildoers such as myself? Will I take this trashy issue to my attorneys who would rather take on significant money-makers? Shall I be so agitated as to turn it into a significant money-maker? Maybe so.
Please send me a complaint letter on my lights. I will have them replaced by a licensed electrician with the most expensive ones I can buy. Then I will take this association to small claims court and they can pay for it. I propose a "Lights On For Surfside" event. We can do it the whole week before the Annual Meeting.
How long will we allow ourselves to be held hostage by these people?
I'm filing a lawsuit next week. They have no right to change the lighting covenant without membership approval.
The tree policy is illegal. One win in small claims court will end the tree policy.
As with the 'Tree Policy", this new rule victimizes one class of member for the benefit of another. So in addition to undue burden, there may be a class action here. If there is a pattern of abuse or malicious harassment, it might lead to Court Orders, Personal Liability, Award of Legal Fees, Triple Damages, Depositions, etc.
There would need to be an inventory of Statements from members who have been victimized. That would go to an attorney who would advise. He/She might send a Cease and Desist letter, followed by a very expensive lawsuit. That is all they listen to.
Making the world a better place is expensive. Sometimes if you are on the high road you can get your money back.
Once all our lawsuits hit them, they'll change their minds!
This is mostly a diversion tactic by the board. They don't want the members aware of and engaged in what's happening with the NBW tie-in. Soon Surfside will be part of NBW and who knows how much Surfside will be funding their budgets.
good point,1:38. If they are moving in that direction. I heard, years ago, from the source, that it was just a matter of time, and the tie-in would give NBW that system. In the meantime, their "management " has overseen the improvement of the system, but not the quality of the water, thus leaving the incentive to nearly double the size of NBW's billing base to pay off the bonds they floated to put their system together. NBW does have good water, but I resent the manipulative orchestrations. It should be up to the members if they want to give away their water system - not NBW and some old-boys in Surfside.
Sorry anonymous 1:05 the board has the total authority to change the covenants. They are according to the rules, to send out a notice and the proposed change 30 days before a member hearing. This year the hearing is scheduled for the annual July member meeting.
If you want to comment during the hearing, best to be sure and attend!
I agree 1:38. We're the money bags of north peninsula.
Why does our hoa need 1.5 million a year? Look at our water company. Look at our common buildings and areas. They aren't even open most of the year. Look at our drainage ditches. They have almost no common access points to put a kayak in. If you do get a kayak in, you better not fall in the water or get any of the water in your mouth. With all that money they still refuse to pay to permanently fix the outfalls!
Okay Joanne. You're right. Thanks!
Actually, Joanne, they do have the right to change the Covenants, but there are overarching rules about what covenants can do. This is a good topic for research and googling some stuff. There have been many many lawsuits around HOA's and abuse.
Personally I think we should get out of the water business! Let’s just join with north beach water and let a company run it. I’m sure it would be cheaper than our dues and the worry about boiling water all the time!
Money should have been spent on a member clubhouse and perhaps swimming pool like other HOAs have! God knows our dues are high enough !
Also, look at the phony garbage business. Water truck, gimme a break! Why not buy a garbage truck and actually provide real garbage service.
We need to get out of the water, police and garbage business. We do a poor job in all areas. Leave those things to the professionals. We have no one that is qualified to do anything. We only provide high wage and high benefit jobs for people not qualified. We need to get out of the service business and concentrate on being a real homeowners association. The board trustees and committee members do not have the qualifications or experience to manage anything. We are not saving money with poor performance, yet we reward it with high wages and benefits.
More Bullshxyz for people living up on the ridge !!!!!! Will it ever end ????????? How long do we have to put up with this crxp ???????
As a protest I suggest we all go an put out a bright light FACING the ridge. I've had enough of those folks RUINING my mylife
What's this about a water wagon ??? Who's dumb idea was that ?? You have to be kidding me - we ARE NOT back in the military. What a waste of fricken money. The board member who brought this forward should be run out of town.
Will there ever be any board proposals that do NOT benefit the ridge folks. I'm tired of feeding their ego's
Totally agree anonymous 9:25! Let’s quit trying to be a small city and just be an HOA! If services are available from outside entities, then go with them, including the sheriffs contract! We need to get our dues down to a reasonable amount
This lighting change is still a joke! How can you make members change their lights when they’ve been fine or ignored until now!
Only one board trustee needs to make a motion at the next regular board meeting in March, that the hearing for a lighting covenant change be tabled. This could be again considered in the future. The covenant hearing has to be separate from the member Annual meeting. You can not combine the two.
Back up for this? It could easily happen
To the person(s) who keep ranting and blaming the J placer's for the lighting policy a couple reminders. It was put forth originally by a committee and there was a known complaint made by someone in the valley AGAINST a J place member.
But of course that doesn't matter, so continue on.
To 3/6 @ 4:35:
You are a liar, easy to do when you're anonymous. Show the proof that the people you named went to the Arch Comm. It was on record about how and why the Committee came forth with their plan, those you mentioned had nothing to do with it. Also, if you are going to continue to lie why not get the names right?
Thank you for the comment 1:36. It's one thing to disagree but to see how so called adults exhibit such childish behavior is disgusting.
Why has this blown up into a covenant that requires all the people with homes in Surfside to change their lighting fixtures. If the board wants new restrictions on types of light fixtures it should apply ONLY to NEW construction. Everyone else should just be ASKED to please use very low watt light bulbs which should be provided at the office just like the backflow valves were. Can't we just start there and if there any big problems after that, then reevaluate. A case of light bulbs is cheaper than the lawyer fees when all the lawsuits hit.
@ 12:43
So maybe the J Place home owners should either turn off some of their lights in the house or shut some of their blinds/curtains, from my lot on I street I can’t watch the moon rise up over the J place hill as I am blinded by their interior lights. Talk about destroying the night sky! Also drive into Surfside after sunset, it is so dark you can’t find streets or driveways. Cut the BS, there are other things to handle.
I agree with 3-8 @ 9:25 AM
Become an HOA not an employer.
Yes 9:25....turn off lights or close blinds/curtains. Why is that so hard.
Why does everything turn into a war here. And why is the first notice a member gets a threatening letter instead of a polite "just want to let you you know" letter.
And of course no committee members are betrodden or under the influence of any board members. They are only looking out for the well being of the members.
I’ve often wondered why spouses or partners are allowed to serve in both areas! Membership is only allowed one vote, but this way they actually control two votes, all from the same household!
We've also noticed the indoor lights of many of the homes are actually brighter and produce more light than the outdoor lights. This could turn into a real fiasco.
Why don't you cut the B.S. 4:14. If you can't find the streets or driveways then it must be time for new headlights or glasses. I guess you don't travel anywhere on the peninsula after dark.
And to the person who wants to put out a bright light FACING the ridge, please do. That would take away your anonymity and I can come down and have a nice long chat with you.
Members the district judge understands how Surfside is run. If you can show any legitimacy in a claim you pay the fee (under$50) go to district court claim, if true, you are harmed lights trees etc. and damages or behavior of HOA will be stopped check history of SHOA in court. You can punish them $ out of business.
Lighting complaints have been around a half-dozen annually. Many if not most of such issues can be easily negotiated between neighbors. The HOA is obligated to address owner concerns/complaints regardless of what the BOT proclaims as our "enforcement policy".
Most of the gripes being expressed here are matters of that kind, and without owner efforts to resolve them with offending neighbors, do not justify changing community policy.
The entire effort has originated as an intrusive elitist proposal presented last year, and largely rejected by members for a host of reasons. Lighting is a practical matter in a community often shrowded in fog, and owned in large part by members over 50 years old.
Like the Tree Policy, this passion for control of matters that are really a matter of member choice and needs is also the source of this false narrative of a community-wide problem of magnitude.
The current proposal is contradictory and poorly thought out, and needs to be rejected by the membership in its' entirety. It has not been based on data about member needs or preferences, but is another useless venue for HOA intrusion and enforcement hijinx.
It definitely IS based on an elitist attitude that the wisdom of the Board will guide the membership so desperately in need of more rules and restrictions. Bullsh*t.
The place to start is to survey the community for their current choices, and find where moderate guidelines may be needed. Setting reasonable wattage limits may be practical, and specific limitations on motion-sensor & security lights.
Eastside needs where Bear and Cougar activity are more common, and lots are more heavily wooded, creates specific lighting concerns. But the majority of lighting issues can be worked-out between neighbors or finally, to the HOA for mediation.
Our concern is will our letter of March 2019 stating that the complaint of July 2019 is now satisfied and we are in compliance with the covenants? If they change the rules will it go back retroactively and we will then be out of compliance? Seems like a valid question that needs an answer!
good question joanne - one day you're OK next day you're not - very unsettling and your property is at risk if you don't do what is commanded - nothing should ever be retroactive - new/changed covenants should only be enforced going forward
JoAnne....You folks were targeted and sent a violation letter in error. There has never been any revision of this covenant, only big talk. They took advantage of your age it seems, and I had told you at least a few times that there has been no formal approval of a lighting covenant change, and even if there had been, retroactive enforcement is NOT LEGAL.
When and IF a change is approved it will be made very clear that is the case, and there will not be any crap about it being "retroactive". Whoever told you that is possible is out to lunch.
There cannot be any compliance demands made for a proposed covenant change, nor any approval until the members have been presented formally with the propodal, and members have expressed approval. The BOT then has to approve it in a Board Meeting, & publish it, making it clear to theventire community.
I guess George didn’t like my comment calling out Mr Elitist J Place resident @ 11:52 on 3-9.
All of us lowlanders would gladly and happily welcome you coming down off your hi horse and have a long chat with us, why don’t you come down in the dark and try to find us! We will be the happy people sitting around our fires with our interior lights off, and we will be relaxing at the beach hoping that we get a new group elected in July to the BOT.
Oh, don’t forget to get your new headlights and glasses because you will be coming down into the dark world that you hi landers are so afraid of and intimidated by!
It’s time to take this HOA away from the group that just wants to waste money on their own pet projects, just because you live on the Ridge it does not make you richer, smarter, or more entitled than those of us that don’t!
You are both feeding into the Board's intent to sew fear and intimidation. The covenant has not been changed, and there is no possibilty of a retroactive restriction. That is not a rational concern. If you prefer to be fearful and worried, go for it. I can assure you, if the BOT pretends to have such authority, owners will come out of the woodwork to stop them. I will for certain!
2.17c Existing lighting sources which do not comply with section 2.17 must be brought into conformance within 6 months............
how is that not a retroactive restriction? they're saying light fixtures which have been fine up to this point will no longer be ok
Nothing about this proposal makes any sense, and I don't think anything about it has been looked at by a reputable attorney. As they like to say" you agreed to the covenants you signed". No one in this community agreed to have a completely arbitrary rule about something so important to our safety and life functions forced upon the membership.
There is no earthly ecplanation for forcing the members to grovel so for our basic property rights. No Court will support a community being forced to adhere to such a rule pulled out of someone's ass on the HOA Board, and having no basis of member approval.
This is unclear about why or when fixrures must comply, while having no restrictions on wattage, and no restrictions on motion-sensor lights or "security lights". MAKES NO SENSE!! All exterior lights can be considered security lights, certainly at entrances.
I agree that the intent is to claim that everyone must comply to their completely vague criteria, but they are equally vague about the 6 month timeline significance, and some mumblings about compliance being prompted by a complaint.
This is inadequate language to convey their intent, the criteria, or why out of the blue, the Trustees have decided lighting enforcement is their next power-trip.
The Trustees have not researched member preferences, and have no specific expertise to justify a covenant rewrite. We were told that there would be no significant changes, only to establish an acceptible lumen level at property lines. THEY LIED.
Nice try 7:42, too bad your comment is an epic fail.
If YOU were the one who made the comment about shining lights up at the ridge, it was childish so own it. I'm not responsible for the proposed covenant change nor are any of my neighbors that live on J. It was put forth by a committee and one of the vocal ones for it who wanted to use the dark skies thing was one of your fellow lowlanders (YOUR term, not mine). So you fail there.
I don't wear glasses, I don't need new headlights and I'm not afraid of the dark. Unlike the person I was responding to (again was that YOU?) I can find my way around in the dark so your retort makes no sense. Again another fail! So, let me know which night you are lighting up that fire and I'll make my way down for that chat. I'd be interested to hear the comment that had to be deleted. My only requirement is for it to be after I enjoy my view of the sunset!
Unlike many who are on here, I was at the board meeting when the proposed lighting change from that committee was put to the board. While I could understand the reasons behind defining how bright the lights can be and to having them restricted to being aimed onto your own property, I didn't get the reasoning behind the dark skies requirement. The way it was explained to me at the time it was the best reference material they could come up.
Here's an interesting fact for you 7:42. During the board conversations one of the trustees who initially was for it was one of your fellow lowlanders who complained about lights from his neighbors up on J. It was some of the J place trustees who wanted it to be put to the members and the board decided to have the topic tabled for another time to get that input from members which did happen.
Luckily I live in an area where so far it hasn't been an issue. While I agree that it would be nice if when there was one it could just be resolved between neighbors, I feel the days where that could be done are long gone. The attitude of 7:42 proves that and is why many people make the decision to move into a HOA community with covenants and why any complaint system needs to be anonymous.
Post a Comment