Blah, blah, blah.
This could be condensed to a couple of lines. How many complaints and how many valid. End of report.
This committee needs to be made inactive and total process turned over to the Designated Compliance Officer. Members of the Board are having discussions on hiring a part time compliance officer.
 |
| Peggy Olds, Committee Chair |
17 comments:
If burning is easier, then burn it!
Right, that's what I would do. If J Placers are so hell bent on topping trees, I would have a fire every day. See how they like smoke drifting uphill in front of their view every day. Then they can start a smoke committee. Of course they would have to buy expensive smoke level detection equipment. New covenant...No smoke allowed in Surfside, but only west of J Place. We want them to be able to burn their fire places.
Sure thing smarty pants go ahead with your plan. I'm sure your close neighbors will love you for it. Maybe you can even win Neighbor of the Year. Plus the more trees you burn the less to cover up my view, so burn away.
Besides, this time of year with all the RV's and part time folks down here with their fires, won't really see a big difference. So again, go enjoy yourself.
The designated compliance officer(s) are the office manager and Gil.
We have had a couple of part time official compliance officers. One even had his own office. Just how did that work out?
Any trees that have been pruned or topped already, aren't going to get much taller than the point where they've been topped. Many if not most on G Street have never been topped, and they have stalled at about 20 to 24 feet. This committee is now looking at inches over set limits, and that is just petty.
Views of the surf are obscured by houses built about 8 ft. apart, and built to max. height all along G Street. If the ground is several feet above sea level, there is a barrier of about 30 feet. This tree height enforcement is pathological - they can't stop doing it, even though there is no longer any point in doing so. The views are not blocked by trees, but by the build-up of dunes, about 27 feet high at the highest points, and runaway development.
It can be verified by this same committee that trees are not blocking Ocean views. This enforcement is strictly an HOA obsession that is no longer necessary. Put a moratorium on the enforcement for a set time, say 2 years, and reassess the matter. At most, the 24 ft. height could be standard, and individual appeals can be looked at by the Tree Comm.. So if a tree nearby is obviously interfering with the view, address it.
Enforcement of this is no longer necessary as a monthly routine. It serves mainly as a means of reminding owners of the power of the HOA, and to keep the common folk from getting uppity.
Thank you for the picture of the Tree Laser Lady. Now I know who to watch for!
10:38 must be talking only of views of the beach. Most are talking views of the ocean and horizon, big difference. I don't understand how anyone can say that trees have stalled when you can clearly see with your own eyes that isn't the case. Then you say that in your example the committee can look at "individual appeals". Well, that's what they are basically doing now, looking at individual complaints. How is that different?
To Tinker:
You must have multiple pictures since there are more than one lady and a guy I have seen out there. And if your trees aren't above the covenant height there is no need to watch for anyone anyways, so relax.
Views of the Ocean in the distance are not and will not be obscured by stopping the tree cutting. Some of J Place is too low in elevation to be considered "View Property" to start with, particularly on the west side of the street.
Most of the east side of the street puts the first floor eye level 30 or more feet above sea level, the ridge running about 20 to 25 feet above. So trees 30 feet tall on the lower levels are below eye level. Many of the ridge homes have the first floor starting about 8 to 10 feet above street level, and may have 3 floors.
No one is willing to admit that continuing to enforce this is unnecessary. At the least, the 24 foot limit should be put in place in all of this regulated area and demonstrate that there is no interference with J Place views. Recognize the fact that the covenants DO NOT make any mention of preserving views for ANY addresses.
I saw a realty add the other day that said "HOA protected views!!" That is technically false. Realtors market this, but there are only tree height restrictions, and those, like ALL covenants, can be changed at the membership's will. There are no protected views.
On the other hand, we can eliminate the rigorous micro-management of tree heights, reserving rights to appeal specific instances nearby J Pl. homes. Most all of the trees in the community have been stunted adequately, many closer to the beach stunted by the weather.
This policy is a bane to the community and creates a lot of animosity. Long term limits can be set at 30 feet or so for new trees planted in the community.
There you go again 10:42
stating facts and making sense-able comments.
What are trying to do? confuse us with facts.
Yeah, right. That's what a high wind area needs, more trees. Quite sense-able.
The Tree Lasar Lady is not a nice person. Walked by her "mansion" on J St one day with my dog. I always carry a doggy bag with me. Lasar Lady was standing in street by her "mansion" and as the puppy and i approached her place, she shouted, " no no, not on my lawn". I was shocked that she would yell this at me. Furthermore, the puppy wasnt even looking for a spot. To Lasar Lady: people like you have given Surfside the bad reputation of ugly natured people. I witnessed firsthand evidence of that! Its no wonder locals tell people not to purchase property in Surfside. Snarly, snotty people like yourself.
"
She is known as Miss Peggy
Such brave anonymous folks. This blog just brings out the best in people. doesn't it?
My contacts with Peggy have demonstrated that she is personable, intelligent and truly interested in making Surfside a better place for all members. I'd say that the dog story is just that, a silly dog story.
Not all people are crazy about dogs. I'd love to have a dime for each pile of dog crap that I have cleaned off of my property due to dog walkers not be responsible. The nearby undeveloped lots seem to encourage dog owners to unclip leashes and to forget to clean up after their dogs. An undeveloped lot is not an excuse to ignore cleaning up after dog crap.
Dont know what you are smoking with comment of Lasar Tree Lady being personable. I stand by the comment of her not being a nice person. All self serving interests in tree heights with herJ views.
Why then does the "tree lady" and the committee follow up on tree complaints that are nowhere near the "tree lady's" view? Could it be that she and the committee have taken on a responsibility that they are doing their best to fulfill? Many of us would like to see the tree covenant and all other covenants enforced fully without complaints being made. A full-time enforcement employee could get Surfside cleaned up, looking good and a respected community. Heaven forbid that Surfside should do something that would be fair and productive!
Hmmm - The "tree lady" has provided a lot of information about invasive plants using her own time and energy to do so. Apparently, some of you think that she does this for a personal gain. Wrong!
I, personally, resent the title "KILL TREE COMMITTEE". Can't you be respectful and just call it the Tree Committee?
Respect is a two-way street....give it and you receive it.
Just a member, and Not on the board.
Post a Comment