Member requested posting ...
Thank you to the member who provided the blog with this information.
Surfside members
Quite recently a tree was cut that had every indication of possibly being an eagle perch tree. These trees are protected. SHOA favorite tree ‘specialists’ Arbor Care, knew nothing about these trees. Perch and nesting trees are protected. Do not let SHOA bully you to cut these down. Explore charges against SHOA for this misdemeanor of up to a $100,000 fine by Fish & Wildlife. Nesting trees can not be cut even if the nest has been empty after ten years. If disturbed, eagles do not reproduce... felony... $250,000
64 comments:
I can't believe that this tree was cut eben knowing it had protected status. This is the same blockheaded audacity that got the HOA into legal trouble over the improper building in wetlands and the fines over mishandling asbestos. These screw-ups cost the membership somewhere in six figures total, and a couple of years of attorney's fees.
This is where the over-confidence leads, and the members get a kick in the ass in the form of huge fines and fees.
Has this been reported to Fish and Wildlife ? If not should be with tree location.
Before you run off half cocked, regulatory authority for protecting bald eagle habitat recently changed in Washington State, and eagle protection now resides solely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Responding to the recovery of the bald eagle, the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission and the Forest Practices Board have modified their respective habitat protection rules. Bald and golden eagles remain protected under the Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and forest practices applicants need to be aware of the steps necessary to protect bald eagles and be in compliance with this federal law.
Are you proposing to conduct any forest practices activities within 660 feet of a bald eagle nest or communal roost site? Are you planning to use explosives within one mile of a communal roost site? If so, you should review the recommended Federal distance and timing restrictions for forest practices activities at www.fws.gov/pacific/eagle/guidelines/disturbnestingbaea1.html
If you would like to report information about an eagle nest or breeding territory, WDFW is interested in the following types of information:
• The location of a new eagle nest or breeding territory,
• A new nest location within a known territory,
• A more accurate location for an existing nest structure,
• Loss of a nest structure or a nest tree,
• Information about occupancy of the site by eagles between January and August, and
• The number of young eagles observed in a nest.
Before submitting information to WDFW please consult ‘PHS on the Web’ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/) to determine the location and name of the bald eagle territory in question, and then visit our Bald Eagle Territory History database (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/bald_eagle/territory/) to determine whether the nest tree location or particular territory history information is already in our database. To share your information with WDFW, please contact Gretchen Blatz at 360- 902-2484; Gretchen.Blatz@dfw.wa.gov
That's the main problem with HOAs, they're a private entity so their's no legal accountability recourse. It's up to the good hearts of a human BOT. Manipulated system to aid and abet the HOA management company lobby. Unless a member or citizen has documented this, we have nothing.
Sad, very sad.
Al this eagle talk is unnecessary as it all goes back to the letter or notice these folks received 11 years ago. Even if proper procedure wasn’t followed by the board, the committee was acting as a representative of the board and it should be honored! I hope these people fight this!
Should we invite fish and wildlife to the tree committee meetings every month? Oh they would really put Peggy and Annette in their place. Im glad fish and wildlife are now involved with the big tree. I hope sandy and Danny win this ordeal, especially since the relatives of the deeleests bought next door and were told not to worry, the tree would go away ! One or two people do not rule the roost here in Surfside.
"Indication of POSSIBLY being an eagle perch tree". Well yeah, it's a tree, but that's your only indication. Ask anyone who lives in the area of that tree and the other one and they will tell you that it is rare to ever see an eagle on it. The local mated pair have a nest over the ridge in the wetlands. They sometimes hang out on the tall trees east of the ridge and of course down on the beach poles. The few times that I've seen them land on those tree they get run off by the two resident crows. That is why it's a rare site to see them there and they certainty wouldn't nest and raise their chicks.
This whole "outrage" is being driven by one person and it's not the owner. It's the same member who requested a posting and portrayed themselves as the owners before. The same local busybody who has a history of trespassing on people's properties and harassing others.
Thanks to the obsessive pressure on all owners west of the ridge, there aren't any trees that are in their natural state. So it is truely pitiful that a few residents are so insistent on cutting ONE natural tree still standing. That's the proud mantra of Surfside -SCORCHED EARTH HOA.
You are right. It is one of the only Sitka spruce still standing. It's a great tree. A long time ago the HOA told the owners they did not need to cut the tree. There is a written record of this communication documented in the HOA records. The HOA gave a waiver because they did not want any of the old tall trees cut down. If members want to save this tree they should write a letter or email to the board members and the business manager.
I really think that it is best to discuss the need to leave a light on with the owner of the property near you. We never leave a nightlight on in Surfside, but we do in Lacey. Our Lacey neighborhood is very well kept, and Lacey police drive through pretty often.
But we've lived here 16 years, and seen periodic phases of theft. The theory is that a number of thieves fan out in the neighborhood in a single night or 2, hitting numerous properties, garages and sheds. Car prowls are also a problem from time to time. The Police bust some of these folks, said to be gang members much of the time. Many owners have security cameras, and most of us leave our front yard light on.
We don't feel the same concerns when in Surfside, but I can accept that some owners feel better leaving a light on. Some want to debate the practicality of lights, but it needs to be seen as a personal choice. Criminal activity increases after dark, so lights are a deterent.
Motion-sensor lights use less electricity, and if not overly bright, are potentially less bothersome. But no reason why neighbors can't have a civil discussion and find common ground. It doesn't need to be a source of neighbor conflict, or enforcement intrusion.
@ Steve Cox, I feel this whole lighting covenant thing needs to go. Its should be up to the individual if they want lights on or off. 60 watt bulbs are just perfect, and LED bulbs are good too. Surfside needs to stop the nitpicking bullcrap and leave people alone. First trees, now lighting, next is neat and tidy. A few have pitted members against each other and divided this community. We need to replace a few board members and start abolishing the tree and lighting covenant.
Unfortunately that’s not going to happen as they plan on buying software to make the compliance officers job even easier to file all these complaints! That’s what was discussed on the meeting recording.
Any compliance officer hired should be able to figure out they are being used to do the dirty work of a few.
Why did Georgianna quit, anyone know?
So the new board is voting on the lighting from what I heard. 4 spots open, I guess I need to get my paperwork in. I am against the tree covenant and the lighting covenant. I could care less if someone has lights on or off. If you feel safe with them on, do it. A few do not rule us all, and have no right to uphold anyones safety. I don't sleep with my curtains open! Now is your chance folks, to get involved and make a difference. Lets put a stop to the good ol boys club, the micromanaging of our lives and start living life like we all should be enjoying.
Ronda F and any other people contemplating running for a board seat. You might want to watch the board meeting video from August 15, 2020. It's the one on the bottom row, 2nd window from the right with Annette in the frame. Starts out with a brief comment about lighting and then goes into a Clancy agenda item about candidates. 11 minute discussion. My take is if you're interested in focusing on modifying any covenants you won't get a very warm welcome. Scary.
Yes Clancy added some more language to the document they want you to sign before they will “approve” your candidacy! I’ll send you a copy. Don’t know how legal it is. It’s just very interesting as I’ve never heard of this before and I ran and won a seat on a school board. The district hospital board never had such a requirement for elections!!
That's what happened to Deb and Patrick. They were harassed and ignored until they gave up and left.
Dear March 29, 2021 at 12:26 PM
What I wished I knew before purchasing in this HOA
1. I wish I never knew about this blog. It makes me weep, with some of the cruelty by bloggers. I wished I never knew there were such mean people here.
2. I wish I would have been warned about all the vacant lots surrounding me. These are campers and the noise and campfire smoke is often unbearable.
3. I wish I knew how imposing some of the neighbors are. There are some very lonely people here and they will intrude on your daily activities.
4. The HOA board is rotten. They enforce some really random stuff
5. Tourist season is a bit painful. Lots of traffic at times.
What I like about this HOA
1. Little to no fireworks in the neighborhood
2. The weather can be fierce but moves through really fast so you can get rain and sun all in the same day.
3. You are close to the beach
4. Many people are very nice and helpful
5. The wildlife will be a blessing and a pain. But mostly a blessing and a bright spot to some of the pain of living here
6. Very very affordable.
Very important for you to know that this is a "mixed use" community with both homes and RVs. The "mixed use" concept was at its inception so it is not going away. If you don't want to have RVs near you, you should purchase in another community that does not allow them.
To expound on the "The HOA board is rotten. They enforce some really random stuff."
A 9 member board (with 5 vote majority) make all the decisions that affect the entire membership. If you break any of the rules you will get 3 weeks to come up with a plan to become "compliant" or as one person in favor of strict compliance said on this blog "get in line".
The tree covenant is a perfect example. For decades the HOA chose not to enforce the tree height covenant. Then the board decided this was a mistake. Instead of trying to figure out a reasonable plan that would work for everyone, they just sent hundreds of complaint letters telling people to cut their trees down. That's why you see all the dead and hacked trees.
They say they ask for member feedback but don't really have a comprehensive communication plan to ensure they are reaching ALL members on important issues.
Over the years there have been periods of peaceful coexistence and antagonistic conflict. Right now we appear to be in a state of conflict mostly over the trees and lighting. Apparently there also might be a "neat and tidy" issue on the horizon. Seems some properties aren't as "neat and tidy" as some of the board members would like. So you have to be aware that even if you agree with the covenants when you purchase your property, they can change at any given time. And the HOA may or may not choose to enforce the covenants. Again all depends on who is on the board.
Not all board members are unreasonable. Some really try to compromise and appreciate all points of view. Seems they are outnumbered right now.
And one last thing, don't drink the water. We only use bottled water to drink and cook. You never know when the next boil water alert is going to come. I'm not sure if we're a water district disguised as an HOA or an HOA disguised as a water district. Either way we never drink or cook with the water.
@11:24, I don't scare that easily and I do not take to being bullied. I couldn't stand Clancy, thank you Jeses he is gone. He cost us more money.
I am only one person, and I have a voice. There are members of the board and members of committees who think they run they entire 2800 lots of this 2000 person community. This was built as a recreational community and it needs to stay recreational. I love the RVS and all the hustle and bustle they bring in.
A change needs to happen.
@12:26. If you do not like trailers and RVS, this place is not for you. It's people like you who move here and want to change all the rules. This was built as a recreational community, get over it.. Campers come here from March thru October, they bring in lots of money to the community, they bring kids and dogs and friends and have campfires and cook outside. They are best best group to talk to.
Yes we have many lonely people here and they need interaction.
Stop being an old crotchety and start living life.
Ronda F......I think you meant to direct your 1:56 post to @1:01 not @12:26. @12:26 was asking for the recommendations and warnings.
Agree with your observation. Most of the RVers we have interactions with are great. We enjoy watching their families change from year to year. That's not to say there aren't a few who are inconsiderate. But that's true of people everywhere. And some Surfside homeowners are pretty hard to take.
It's clear you don't scare easily. That's why we will definitely vote for you!!!!
To @1:01.....RVers aren't the only ones who make campfires and noise. Most of the homes in Surfside have firepits too. And some full-time homeowners have dogs that bark all day long. So it all depends on the luck of the draw as to who your neighbors are. We consider ourselves very fortunate because we have both RVs and homes and experience absolutely no problems with anyone near us.
This was established as a recreational HOA and should remain that! The RVd have just as much right here as homeowners. We sure don’t have a problem with them. We all have company, fires and laughter at different times! The one thing I don’t like is to feel like we live in a gestapo atmosphere! Talk to your neighbors! Much better than a committee member driving or walking around finding what they perceive as problems!
We need to return to a member complaint only HOA. Any member who files a complaint must prove that their complaint directly effects them. They must show that a tree totally blocks their view. If a neighbors flood light causes you a problem personally, you must prove it. Each complaint must be handled individually. The complaint form must state that you have first addressed the problem with your neighbor first, before submitting it to the association. I think we would find that many members are more tolerant than we think they are. Good neighborly communications would help a lot. Might even bring members together.
Absolutely George! There needs to be a limit set as to how many complaints a residence can file. 1 per month, pick your poison and carefully
Very much needed to get this complaint because of compliance gone. Still don’t understand how the BOT just did this with a motion during a meeting?
Steve, you really need to consider running again for a spot on the board. Please do not let a few arrogant ones ruin it for you. The board needs good people like you and a few others who can and will bring in change to the community.
"It's people like you who move here and want to change the rules".
What a joke. Isn't that what you're and others are doing? I can say the same to you. There are plenty places on the peninsula where you can grow your trees high and light up the neighborhood if you like. I and others purchased our property for the covenants not in spite of them. I don't want to deal with neighbors with tall trees on my property line. I wanted to see the ocean. You all keep with the recreational community remark, well we are also a beach side community, not a forest one. I also wanted a recourse other than the police in dealing with neighbors that don't follow the rules like I and others do.
People also say they want to be left alone and do what the want with their property. Most educated individuals know that won't happen if you move into a HOA, yet they did.
Thanks 10:42! I agree. Now I really know what this blog is about.
Thankyou 10:42 we moved here also in 2012 because of the covenants and we pay more in taxes than we did in Seattle. Worth every penny! Tired of those on this blog that complain about stuff they should of known about before they signed on the dotted line, it’s a HOA, deal with it!
Please run Steve. You and Ronda can end the tree and lighting covenants. I hope Doug runs too.
@11:25, 11:06, and 10:42
There are many who agree with you, likely more than the regular contributors here on the blog. That said, in my opinion, there are changes the BOT should consider with regards to consistency of enforcement.
We can probably stop the proposed Lighting covenant because it has no basis in the reality of life in the community. No attempt has been made to assess what members want or need, no consideration of safety issues has been a part of the "plan". It claims to seek to limit the lighting members choose to use which is deemed a property right and personal choice, yet doesn't limit wattages. I is entirely unenforceable as written. It gives no clear guidelines, and makes vague references to requiring members to buy replacement fixtures that point downward without any rational explanation why. The community has not been surveyed for opinions such as is necessary to mandate specific fixtures or "Dark Skies" philosophy. This policy is a disaster as written.
Any changes to the Tree policy will be fought with all of the might of current and past Board members, and J pl. Owners. Two new Trustees can't change policy in Surfside. Five is a majority.
11:31.... I meant to thank you for your supportive words and fair-mindedness. I'm not intending to run at this time. I wish it was a better fit for my life, but it isn't at this time.
We do need some kind unselfish common sense Trustees who can keep this community grounded in practical policies that serve everyone better. Our Water Dept is much more critically in need of attention and professional staffing than the perceived need for compliance emphasis.
Welcome to Surfside, the Peninsula's Tree Eradication Community. Where we treat members like an Andrew Cuomo nursing home patient.
Anonymous @ 11:31 AM 3-30
Thank you for the vote of confidence, I am an RV lot owner that is part time. I will be there longer this year and am looking for additional property to possibly build or already built on. I do know I live in an HOA now and in comparison the Surfside HOA is out of control and does not care what the members want or need. But that is typical for HOA’s as board members have their own agendas that do not align with membership needs.
Very true Doug. I appreciate your enthusiasm and viewpoint .
We want to live at the beach not in a forest. That's why we have very few shore pines (weed trees) on our property. Shore pines are easy to prune into very healthy looking "bush" trees. We don't live on J Place so don't care about the "view" aspect of this covenant.
We do care that Surfside is looking like the Dead Tree Society and will only get worse if we keep going in the direction we're headed.
The problem began when the HOA allowed the trees to grow to the height of 20-30 feet and then decided to start enforcing the tree height covenant. You can't "prune" a 20-30 foot tree down to 16 feet. Duh!!!
Once the HOA decided it was a mistake to let this go for so long they should have come up with a better plan. They decided that EVERYONE deliberately ignored the covenant. I don't buy that. Who knows why people didn't cut their trees down. Maybe they bought a lot with 20-30 foot trees so thought is was OK. Maybe a lot of people looked around and thought it was no longer being enforced. Who knows. We didn't ask. All we know is that hundreds of people were blindsided by nasty complaint letters.
The question is how should we go about fixing the problem now? The HOA and the property owners BOTH have responsibility. The HOA needs to put the tree covenant on hold, bring members together and come up with a better plan.
The tree policy is 100 percent legal!
It doesn't matter what people on this blog think.
Thank you anonymous 11:02. You summed it up completely! The trees are being killed, look ugly and I agree a better plan can be put in place!
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.
It does matter what people on this blog think. They are members!!! It should always matter what all members think.
@11:02, Thank you, you summed it up. We need for the good of the community, not the good of a few
The covenants aren't subject to member approval, so obviously it doesn't matter what members think. That's the proof.
Not arguing for or against the covenant. If I had a view I'd want to keep it. If I had trees that were too tall for 10-20 years and all of sudden was told to cut them I'd have a problem with that. We're ruining the landscape and causing pain and hardship in people's lives. Just saying we need to come up with a better plan.
PLEASE SHOW UP in support!
This Saturday, April 3 at 4PM ....35306 I PLACE🌲🌲
A reporter from the Chinook Observer will be there to talk to Surfside owners advocating to save this 100 year old Sitka spruce from the tree committee.
Are you certain the spruce tree is 100 years old? I suppose we can count the rings once it has been removed.
It might be older than 100 years. It was here before Surfside. Whoever organized this, thank you. We'll be there.
CAUTION...We do not know if the "Anonymous" comment about meeting with a reporter is in fact true. Seems to me they would have used their name. I strongly advise that you do not attend. Also read my statement under "Surfside Chat" home page. Unless there is a valid response, I will be removing that comment.
Easy to find out with a call to the paper.
Two (2) sources have verified the comment as accurate.
About the one women's crusade about this tree, I have a question. Let's assume for a moment that she gets what she wants and it is declared an eagle sanctuary or whatever, which is a big if. That would mean it couldn't be cut down right? So that would mean the current homeowners couldn't cut down a tree on their own property. That would mean if/when they go and try to sell the property any buyer would not be able to cut it down, which would affect the amount of potential buyers, right? It would also affect any surrounding properties in the same way. All because of one person, who btw had no problem being part of the gang that tells us we have to keep OUR trees compliant.
So why are all the anti-board anti-covenant people not upset by this? You have one person dictating what someone can do with their property with possible financial consequences. Not a HOA with stated covenants. Just one person.
What is that nonsense 9:42 PM. Here comes the boogie man. Ooooooo we're scared now. Let the tree live!
The HOA is not fully to blame if someone has allowed a tree to get above 20-30 ft on their property in an area that has covenants in placed. There are many examples where members have followed the rules and kept their trees within the limits. Also, the HOA decided that EVERYONE is now going to be responsible to follow the covenants, which many already did.
While I can't agree completely that people were blindsided since the now proactive enforcement policy was discussed in meeting minutes and was coming, I do agree that given the time gap the board should have sent out messages to let people know that it was now going into effect.
Since I have kept my trees compliant I didn't receive a letter but my one neighbor did. He wasn't too surprise since he knew his were a little tall. I read it and it didn't seem that nasty to me, just pretty basic telling him he was in violation. He contacted the office and let them know he would take care of the issue once the chipper site was back and it was approved, which is the same way the office had dealt with the complaint system. Simple as that.
I realize that some here don't want to hear this, but the bottom line is like it or not there are covenants in place that you are supposed to follow. Just because you hadn't gotten a complaint in the past isn't an excuse.
I think the bigger here is that even with the possibility of a majority of membership wanting and voting for change, the board can always overrule any changes they dont support. That's the system that needs to be changed. The board should be supporting what the majority of membership decides, not their own self interest.
12:02:
There was a plan in place, the covenant. Unfortunately for them, people didn't follow it which explains why the trees got so high.
9:42:
From what I heard the F & W permit fell through, which probably explains why the Observer thing is happening. I understand your point. There is a bit of hypocrisy going on, specially the fact that it's an former tree comm person behind all this.
10:06:
I find your comment nonsense and makes no sense.
12:30:
I agree that the board should have given a heads up. I still feel that the proactive way is better in the long run than the complaint system but can also understand both sides arguments. I don't think there is a HOA out there where some of the members have covenant issues. It's the nature of the beast.
5:30:
I understand what your saying, but it's not just their self interest. It's also the interests of those that voted for them. No different than any other trustee.
Obviously the coffee has kicked in, time for the walk.
You surely know that no one has proven in Court that the Tree Restrictions are legal. There's no point in repeating your statement without some verification beyond your anonymous claims. We have never witnessed an attorney make this claim in public, nor read it in a signed statement, and even that would be the statement of a paid representative of the HOA.
It's definitely not that simple. Members have not legally contested the Tree Restrictions, and the shed roof matters that were taken to Small Claims were found to not be defensible by the HOA. All of the member's expenses were reimbursed by the HOA.
We live in the area of the tree and know of several neighbors who called the paper not just one person. The current owners of the Sitka spruce were told by the HOA 10++ years ago they did not need to cut the tree. The HOA stated they didn't want any of the old tall trees cut down. It you've been by the tree you can see that there are no other tall trees except that one. Haven't heard anything about the eagle permit but saw someone here a few days ago taking pictures when the eagle flew out of it.
Let the Tree Live!
What about the other eagle tree in Surfside they had removed? Where is this, the paper and F and W need to know today
Post a Comment