Storage Sheds... Why is it even an issue?
This was not even an issue until several former Board members decided to become proactive on the Architectural Committee and file complaints on sheds that had an overhang on them. This resulted in two of the members appealing and ending up in Pacific County Small Claims Court. In both cases, the members won in their favor.
The Board President, Gary Williams, acting without formal Board approval, appealed the court decision and has filed a new counter suit against Board member Patrick Johansen and another member over Mr. Williams perceived covenant violation. The appeal and new suit is in limbo at this time. Meanwhile, the association has spent in excess of ten thousand dollars on legal fees. The unauthorized action by the executive committee was what triggered the motions to remove members of that committee from the Board at the Annual Meeting. That motion failed and what is really astonishing is, that Gary Williams was re-elected Board President by a majority of his fellow Board members.
Do the majority of members really think that sheds are such an issue that we should be spending thousands of dollars in legal fees and harassing fellow members?
There are sheds all over the County as well as in Surfside. Most meet the only County restriction that the enclosed area can not exceed 120 square feet. There is nothing about how much overhang there can be. No such restriction exists in the Surfside covenants. The County does not even require a permit to have a shed on your property. I think that indicates how big a deal they see about it.
There are some really run down and un-attractive sheds everywhere. That was not the case in the two in Surfside. They really set a good example of "neat and attractive" The association has proposed a covenant addition that will state overhangs can not exceed 18 inches. This is an admission that there are no restrictions on overhangs.
Should there be a restriction?
My opinion is yes.
If there is no restriction, you could cover the entire lot with an overhang.
But, the restriction has to make sense.
I would think that you would want to allow the overhang or open sided extension to not exceed 120 square feet. This would allow 3 4x10 pieces of plywood to be used as the roof of the extension. Most sheds are sized at 10 by 12. This would allow an extension on the 12 foot side.
The simple proposal above, would end the nonsense covenant violations and harassment of members. The RV folks could better use their property, especially during bad weather. They could have a covered place to clean their clams and/or set a picnic table and be out side to enjoy a campfire. By the way, dry fire wood puts up very little smoke.
If you have a "happy camper" you will have a happy member. A small compromise on sheds would be a big step forward in bringing members together, rather than dividing them as this and past Boards have done.
Anyway, I am no expert on anything, I may be wrong, but that's the way I see it.
43 comments:
Q: Can I have an RV cover or other structure with my RV?
A: Structures such as decks, RV covers, lean-to’s, garages, shops, carports, etc., are NOT allowed in conjunction with the recreational vehicle usage; however, one storage building, not exceeding one hundred twenty (120) square feet in size, being temporary in nature and placed on a temporary or portable foundation, is allowed.
From the Pacific County website, seems he can't attach anything to a shed per the county
I concur that the overhang covenant change is too small. Every out-building we have has a two foot (24 inches) overhang. Two foot protects the sides better in our wet part of the state.
But I don't agree with anything more.
All too often, in Surfside, the sheds are being used for everything, But a shed.
The County ordinance pertains to attachments to RV's, not sheds. Many get confused about this. There should probably be an ordinance for attachments to sheds, but there is not. This makes a legal loop hole that makes county enforcement impossible. Surfside covenants on sheds have the same issue. This is part of the reason for a change in Surfside covenants. This can bring up another issue of is this 18 inch or any size legal with the County? Unfortunately, with Surfside, it has become more of a power and ego issue, rather than what will make Surfside more enjoyable for everyone. This has fostered more division than anything.
I do not favor attachments to RV's. A roll up awning on an RV works fine, but not on a shed that will be here all year long. A solid roof extension will survive and protect during the Witer storm months. That's the way I see it.
As to county code enforcement, u can see many examples of decks with rv’s. Don’t really see a problem, as when rv leaves, deck remains. But from above comment I would assume a cover is ok if for storage, see that all over also. If ya wanna get picky, most storage sheds in Surfside are not “portable”, whatever the definition of that is. Just try moving one without it falling apart. Only time most are portable is in the first few years. But I see since moving here, there are many that need something better to do than worry bout “their damn neighbors”,lol
George, I think the facts are slightly different than portrayed here. The Small Claims suit is actually an appeal of a court order in small claims ordering the HOA to pay the claimants (Johansen and Otterson) (sp ??) part of their attorney fees. The court specifically said, during the small claims hearing, that she would not determine whether a shed, or shed overhang, complied or did not comply with the covenants. Appellate departments rarely disturb the lower courts discretion in cases like this and that case should wind up with a denial of the appeal and perhaps more fees attached to the SHOA to pay Patrick and the Ottersons. The case is almost over with respect to costs and the hearing in the appellate court should not be really expensive. It is heard before a single judge. No jury is used. The SHOA will have appellate paperwork to prepare and respond to but that is not really expensive. Perhaps a few thousand dollars each. Their is no such thing as a case "in limbo". They always progress or the court tosses the case. Let's call this the "Small claims case".
The second suit, the one by Mr. Williams, is to get a court, any court, to say that the overhang on Patrick's shed violates the covenants and to make him "fix it". Let's call this the "William's case". The hope there is to make an example of Patrick so others will be afraid to contest findings by the Board with respect to alleged covenant violations. If successful the SHOA may get attorney fees in addition to other costs. That could financially break a guy, or perhaps the SHOA, with attorney fees and costs. Depositions can, and should, be taken. Paper discovery (General and Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production, Request for statements of damages, Requests for Admissions, etc.) are very expensive to prepare and to respond to, for both sides. The $10,000 number bantered about here is about 10% of what the real attorney costs would be to do the discovery, especially if there is a lot of "law and motion" practice about the discovery or some "electronic discovery". Then there is the cost for a settlement conference or mediation, trial prep, the trial itself, even if it is only two or three days. And then there is the probability of appeal of the William's case, by either side . That's the real danger of the William's suit to Patrick and our SHOA. Sometimes the costs expended in discovery and preparation of the suit makes it impossible to settle even after some preliminary Phase 1 discovery and a mandatory mediation. Everyone has just spent too much money to make it palatable to settle then.
And, perhaps I heard it wrong, but I recall Gary saying that part or all of the $10,000 already spent was to compensate prior board members who have taken the SHOA to task. Who? Pre-litigation settlements? Other Board members previously departed? Judgments on cases we don't know about? I'd ask to see the checks connected to payment of any legal expenses and identifying the payee if I was looking to get to the bottom of this. There is an attorney - client or work-product privilege that may preclude one from getting the details of the cases themselves, but that should not extend to the name of the payee for legal or indemnity purposes when requested by an Association member.
I have no axe to grind here. I think, for the most part Gary and some of the Board do a good job but without much knowledge of Robert's Rules, or thanks. They are doing the best they can. There are others that are so emotionally invested in their cases, or in imagined or real slights or prosecution by the Board, that it would be very difficult to get them back into the fold of the SHOA and stop this source of constant bickering, and pure divisive hatred, stirred up by folks taking sides.
Sure would be nice to be able to get back to fishing and the fun this beautiful part of the world is famous for.
Thanks for your legal explanations. This is why you should be on the Board. If you were or had been, it could have saved the association (you & I) many thousands of dollars. This is stupid to be where we are today. I and Jim Flood tried to stop this at the start. Flood warned that this could cost up to and over 80,000.00 I know the court costs are the cheapest part. It's the attorney fees that kill you. Even today, Williams is engaged in long calls with the attorney, as the meter is running.
This is a mess that I only see getting worse. Especially when the money is not coming out of their own pocket. We have many members like yourself, who could offer much to and for the association, but they have seen how things work or not work here, and would rather go fishing.
Thanks for your comment and information. I hope you will at least continue to set me and the readers straight from time to time between your fishing.
Taking a small right turn off subject...
The BOT voted down the tsunami cache monies. In the weekender, we see just the cutest “shed” that was built and certainly fenced for those food caches that poor stupid folks believe will save them in a natural disaster on the Peninsula. But I digress.....who paid for the shed, and certainly the large amount of fencing. If the “cache people” did, well, a fool and his money soon part ways.....but did the HOA contribute in any way to this project?
8:04 sure sounds like SHOA’s lawyer. Or someone else that has access to privelaged info.
8:04 - lawyer, yes. SHOA's lawyer - no way. Anyone else's lawyer in SS - no way. Privileged info - nope - just went to the Annual hearing for fun. The rest is on the public court record already or spoken to all at the meeting. Sorry.
I'm very grateful for your taking time to offer us some grounded review of what has transpired, and the trappings Mr. Williams has either dismissed or is naïve about. It is interesting that your rundown is mostly consistent with comments that have been on the blogg, though I don't see where Gary Williams has made any intelligent effort to resolve this stuff, cognizant of its' relative unimportance.
It is surely common knowledge by now, that pres. Williams asked that Trustee Mark Scott offer Patrick Johansen an opportunity to have the lawsuit dropped. That offer was good only if Patrick resigns as a Trustee, and sells his property. Keep in mind, Patrick has not been found to be in any way non-compliant, just charged with non-compliance.
Note this statement in our Bylaws : "No member shall be forfeited nor any member expelled except upon foreclosure for non-payment of dues or assessments, and as to owning tracts at Surfside Estates, no member may withdraw, except upon transfer of title to the real property to which his membership is appurtenant.
So, this "deal" is sleezy and inappropriate on the face of it, but our Bylaws specifically state that owners are not to be threatened or chased out of the community by the HOA unless they delinquent on payments to the HOA. No one's membership ends until the title is signed over.
I don't see why shed eaves or overhangs are picked out as an "issue". I don't really see why a shed needs to be moveable either. A few RV owners have small front stoops with steps - which seems like a nice addition, if well built.
Better to stick with the 120 sq.ft. limit as that requires no building permit, and is consistent with the County standards. But as a community that has been built around a significant RV presence, and has a well-established HOA, I don't think the County is likely to have a problem with Surfside setting some of our own standards concerning RV properties.
If the Architectural Committee could focus on RV lot additions from the standpoint of sound structure and design, I would favor loosening the restrictions to allow shed porches within the 120 Sq. ft. footprint, woodracks, either on the shed wall or elsewhere, and RV front stoops or stairs. Short panels of Cedar fence could also be allowed for some privacy or wind breaks.
Many RV lots have had fun setting up their lots with plantings and modest amenities. Seems fine to me, if well done. Allowing a bit more autonomy seems fine, and better to keep limits on Winter use. But I do think that RV lots should have their annual assessments reduced according to their reduced access. CAUTION: there is a requirement that all dues be the same, currently written.
So would my assessment be reduced also since I don't have access to the third floor of my house? The reason being that I couldn't build a third floor due to the height restrictions? See how that works?
RV's have access all year round. They just can't park and leave it there unattended indefinitely.
Oh, pish posh 11:43....we have, as many, an undeveloped lot. (No water hook-up, no power, not even a driveway), but we pay full assessment and dues. Get over that your being picked on. YOUR NOT!
11:43 sez … I'm not an RV owner ! Are you too dense to comprehend that a restructuring of dues would certainly benefit you by reducing your assessments as well ?
I own a house and have nothing to gain by advocating more freedom for RV and vacant lot owners. There are reasons to leave the dues the same for everyone. It's simpler for accounting and budgeting, and why advocate for the rights of thankless people like you ?
And 8:17, how can you equate advocating for small concessions to allowing houses 35 feet tall? You'll have to settle for what you have, as you will not find anyone cares about your sad situation. Bitter, that is.
I'd like to have a two story house. There is one right behind my house. Woe is me. The covenants say no. I'd like to have reduced dues and fees because my house is too short.
Anyone who can rally support for their cause should be able to see their proposed covenant change given consideration. I think we know that you are just being a wiseguy - but the covenants of most HOAs cannot be changed by the HOA Board. Most require a vote by the membership and a healthy majority approval.
The fact that many owners would like to see some changes to a few covenants, or just one, does not make them "whiners" or malcontents - just honest about their opinions. The covenants are intended to be fluid and provide for a process to change them. It makes good sense to revise the process to require member approval, and into alignment with most HOAs.
There are many antiquated laws on the books in all 50 states that are ridiculous, most not enforced and ignored. But the point being, sometimes changing a law or rule is too complicated to justify the effort in higher levels of government, so there's no basis to the "You knew what the rules were...." b.s.,in our little HOA, when it is obvious there is discontent and many voices for change. If there wasn't broad opposition to the tree policy, the community wouldn't be such a mess.
There is a saying “if it isn’t written, it isn’t “. There is nothing written about shed or houses for that matter that adresses overhangs, much less put any measurement on them. Hopefully in this free world there never will be one forced on us.
There always is a contingency of members who are discontented in HOA's. Most often this is a noisy and small minority. Same goes in Surfside. The many voices for change perceived by 9:59 is actually only a minority of malcontents. Once more, a storage shed is simply a storage shed. Nothing more and nothing less. Other issues of this obnoxious group are all about getting out of responsibilities or fulfilling some self serving wishes. The entire association would be better off without the whining and aggressive nature of these complainers. Think about it. The complainers may find some support within their minority group. Yet, the rest of us, the majority, simply would be happier if they would shut up and go away.
And 10:58 lived happily ever after. Lol
10:58 - you are truly a piece of work.
It would be much easier to control the message if not for forum's like this, wouldn't it?
Your so-called majority is shrinking steadily, propped up by a highly questionable election, Trustee's consistently going outside the covenants, and bad judgement costing us thousands in a frivolous lawsuit.
Be proud!
If the majority is shrinking like you say, then why didn't the Blagg group let the entire membership know of their plans before the annual meeting to let them respond properly? Instead they came in with their group, thinking that by using this tactic they for once would have a majority, yet they still didn't.
There was nothing, nothing questionable about the election. To continue to keep repeating this doesn't change that. People stood up to run and got elected. Just because nobody from your so-called minority didn't is your problem. That was another reason for those tactics used.
Congratulons 9:54 you have completed the first course in the “Gary Williams Lack of Leadership School”, that being hypocrisy. Just chant “Blagg overt voting action - BAD”,Olds covert proxy action GOOD”. You are well on your way to winning the “Gary Williams West SHOA Board President in history. CONGRATULATIONS!
Congratulation should go to you 08:23, the squeaky minority at work whining, howling, and chanting with name calling. Why don't you organize a march on the office, see how few of you actually show up, and don't use the excuse that you don't because the "SS mafia" or "Kirby's Cronies" will somehow execute some sort of retribution on you.
There is no way these people will ever get together! They are lazy and never show to volunteer or go to meetings. They give excuse after excuse on why they can't get their way by blaming all the other members. Fact is none of them care enough to make the effort.
And just what have you done 1:03
Tell us what, and use your name to prove it, otherwise your just blowing smoke. I am not claiming to have done anything other than helping my neighbors. I guess you consider running your mouth here is making an effort. Probably all you have ever done for someone else. You fool no one, except yourself.
You go first!
I've never seen Patrick volunteer to anything. Deb doesn't even show for her own Tech committee.
Well now 3:39, I make no claim to doing anything. Your the one shooting off your mouth. Just as I thought, just blowing smoke out your your know what.
How did the get on the Board then? They had to step up at some point, unlike anonymous posts.
Anonymous posts are made on this blog out of fear of some kind of retaliation. Look what has happened to both Patrick and Deb because they havent hid who they are. They have stood up for SHOA covenants that need to be reevaluated. They are not cowards like myself and others! Members that cant give it up and continue their character assassinations on Deb and Patrick are shameful and pathetic. One of these days, these folks will meet up with a member that has money to fight some of these ridiculous covenants. Hold onto your checkbook SHOA. That time will come sooner than you think. Maybe it would bankrupt the entire HOA. Not a bad thought, huh?
Not a bad thought at all. It is a shame that the only way to fix this mess is to end the association. Can't say people haven't tried to fix it, like Patrick and Deb. How ironic that the bankrupt of the entire HOA would end all the covenants. Who they going to blame then?.
END OF SHOA! Best news I’ve heard on this blog
What a shame that some of the small minority hope to vanquish the majority with the destruction of the association. This bratty behavior is so very indicative of the self serving and hateful intentions of this tiny coalition of malcontents. It remains all about a few members who are engaged in buyer' remorse because they did not succeed in changing the association and its covenants to suit their personal whims about how things should be.
Aaaaaand there he goes again,lol
What a shame you cannot see what we see. A corrupt association with a few well dug in proponents, fighting to their last breath. I'd go easy on that majority talk. Next time people will actually know what they're doing with their proxies.
The shame is that all some of you can see is your own minority view to destroy the association so that you can achieve some personal ideas about what the HOA should be to fit the dreams of a group that mostly just visits here for a few weeks of the year. A vote that would include many more members in the future would be welcomed. The silent majority isn't going to vote for the changes proposed by the minority.
Members who are disatisfied with the HOA(the numbers are not a few either), only suffer buyers remorse after realizing the corruption within Surfside. Realtors certainly don’t disclose the Mafia Environment! Soon, this HOA. Will run into a member that can’t be bullied and have the finances to “take em to the cleaners!” Hold on!!!! It will be a time to remember and for the benefit of all. Lastly, I can assure you this will happen unless the SHOA has gone broke and bankrupt before. Keep Williams at the helm. He’s helping things along quite well, thank you!
You have no basis for your statements but are very over confident at the same time, offering everyone your invaluable advice. Proposing changes in policy is not akin to wanting to "destroy the Assoc.". The Assoc. is already a shambles, and only those who want to see it improved and functional, and working as it is intended, give a crap.
We have no data on what most owners want out of an HOA. That is the reason Deb Blagg wanted to start a Tech Comm., and to try and create a broader network of communications. It isn't really possible to get rid of the HOA by ANY means except maybe Tsunami. Making changes that enable it to function fairly, honestly - much easier.
It is unlikely that people who comment here have any designs on getting rid of the HOA. They wouldn't bother to read the blog or comment here. But any statements about the "majority" of Surfside members are just blowin' smoke.
I heard they received less than 300 surveys back, waste of money!
Kinda like the election?
No, not like the election at all. You only got one vote in the election unlike the survey that allowed people to submit as many as they like. Because of this you didn't get a true representation of what the membership wanted.
What I don't understand is what is taking so long with the results? You would thing that Ms. Tech Guru with all her talk would be further along by now.
Just can’t let up on your sarcasm about Deb. You and your bunch is pathetic. And we wonder why our children today act like they do! Take a look in the mirror.
I believe you should have said, "You and your bunch ARE pathetic". I guess that is why your children talk the way do. Guess maybe you need to take a look in the mirror also, that is if you own any that aren't cracked.
Post a Comment