Surfside Bylaws:Section 4. In the event a trustee, other than an incorporator, ceases to be the owner of the land to which his membership is appurtenant, or of a contract for the purchase thereof, he shall thereby cease to be a trustee and his office shall become vacant upon written notification without action other than to spread such fact upon the minutes of the board of trustees.
With the final papers signed this week, Patrick Johansen is no longer a Surfside member.
Patrick was elected to the Board several years ago. Prior to being elected to the Board, a complaint had been filed against his property for a storage shed that was cited as being a covenant violation. While serving on the Board, he continued to dispute this violation and sued the Association in Small Claims Court. The Judge in that case agreed with Mr. Johansen and ruled in his favor.
The Association, without Board approval, decided to appeal and the Association legal fees have now exceeded $10,000.00 and still not gone to court. It is reported that the Association would drop the appeal if Mr. Johansen would sell his property and resign from the Board. The current sale of his property is not a response to that offer. The legal dispute continues.
During his time on the Board, while a part time resident with an RV lot, Mr. Johansen has been an active Board member. He has promoted fair and honest treatment of all members, revision and review of existing covenants, and transparency in Board actions. Those who favor the status quo, have vigorously opposed him and his efforts.
Patrick and his wife have purchased other property on the peninsula and will still be able to enjoy the beach experience. Hopefully the legal issues with Surfside will be resolved soon and the Johansens' can be free of the stress brought upon them.
Thank you Patrick for your worthy efforts to make Surfside a better place for everyone. The Board and members are less represented with your departure. Good luck.
 |
| Patrick Johansen |
33 comments:
Last of the good guys! Don’t blame you for leaving. Sorry you won’t be around to watch the entire HOA collapse!
Patrick is a good guy that tried to fight skunks! He has the backbone to not back off to these bullies in SHOA. I’m sorry to see him leave, but quite frankly, most people wouldn’t have lasted this long to his character assassinations, stalking, lurking and whatever else the Mafia could do to rid the HOA of him. Peace to you Patrick. You deserve better! You opened a lot of eyes to the corruption.
great news. He tried to get away with not following the covenants. He probably thought that no one would care. He cost us a lot of money. Now he's somewhere else in the area, looks like just off Sandridge close to the bay. Good luck.
1:37 you are wrong. It wasn’t Patrick that cost us alot, it is Williams and his yellow belly followers!
1:50 You are wrong. If Johansen would have built his shed as approved by the arch. committee, there would have been no problem. Anyone who believes anything different has there head stuck in a dark place.
Like I said 1:59, he cost us a lot of money trying to skip around the rules.(1:37)
Patrick threw the first punch. He took the Association to court, not the other way around. The small claims judge ruled in his favor but did not answer all of the questions raised by the lawsuit. It is appropriate to appeal a decision that does not resolve the problem. I am happy to see Patrick sell his lot in Surfside. I hold no ill will or animosity toward Patrick. I wish him well. HOA life was not for him.
Here, Here 2:30!
1:37 Be clear in that the BOT cost the HOA the money. Patrick didn't push this.
You cannot enforce rules that don't exist. It is really that simple.
You can't get an approval of a plan to build a shed and then proceed to add onto the shed without seeking approval for the addition. 2:56 You also have your head in a dark place. Wrong is wrong! Johansen was wrong.
You have to have your head up your keester to think a shed roof facing the canal on an undeveloped loop merits spending vast sums of money in Court. The HOA failed to succeed in Small Claims court on two occasions, and refused mediation offered for a couple hundred bucks, choosing to take him to Superior Court at great expense.
It is not known how many sheds have been built in the community that do not conform to the HOA's satisfaction, as most have never been inspected. This is all about chasing an independent Trustee out of the community. The BOT refuses to work with members who have a mind of their own. It will be interesting to see how Rudd Turner likes it. Raymer just sits and watches it go on.
Except for showing up for meetings and doorsteps before election time, how can he be described as an "active board member". He serve on next to no committees when compared to other board members and the one or two he was on he never showed up or even called in.
Once he decided to sell he should have resigned from the board or at least at the last meeting. Not surprised he didn't.
I guess it’s true that some old tend to regress, sound like bunch of 12 year olds.
As 5:29 pointed out, Patrick had agreed to arbitration. Only the BOT demanded a legal team whose process included visits, team travel and many billing hours. It would be extremely expensive. Patrick requested the use of a separate arbitrator that would have only cost a couple of hundred dollars and was completely unbiased (the BOT wouldn’t know about things like ethics). The BOT refused this alternate and thus set up this continuing extremely expensive scenario that we owe to Mr. Williams. Members, this is going to cost you dearly in the end!
The problem with the appeal for Patrick is the personal cost he is going to have to cover. The main reason the appeal was filed was because the small claims judge refused to make a decision on the applicability of the shed covenant. Is it consistent with Pacific County or is it not? Was it properly applied or was it not? Patrick is thinking only of himself. Just as he was when he filed the small claim suit and just as he continues to do. Surfside, for the benefit of all its members, needs to have a ruling from a judge on the quality if it’s shed covenant.
Congrats on your new property on the bay Patrick! Life on the bay is peaceful and free from a corrupt BOT. Enjoy.....
If the BOT would put 1/10 the effort into sprucing up the common area's of SHOA instead of fighting over an overhang we would be a much better community. For a shed with a real " wow " factor check out the one in the parking area of a home on 352nd and F. Must have cost $$$ and it has a porch and an overhang. No complaints filed (I guess) so it goes totally unnoticed. I think it's a welcome addition.
Yes, we need to have a ruling at a cost of over $10000 for our association. BS!
Legal costs have exceeded $60,000 already. The HOA has some type of insurance that may pay some of the cost, but we all know there are always strings attached.
I'll have to check out this fancy shed 9:47 - thanks for mentioning it. Properties with homes can have numerous outbuildings and have few restrictions on these structures. I don't understand why sheds are required to be moveable. Sheds of 120sq. ft. or less don't require a building permit, and in most cases can be moved intact - but I don't see why a structure on private property should have such a requirement.
Does it occur to any of you that the association is paying an attorney for expert advice about how to handle the trouble that Johansen started? Have so many of you become accustomed to violating the covenants that you think that everyone should do it? Can't any of you comprehend that the sloppy and unfair enforcement that happens with complaints being the reason that covenants get enforced is a problem?
11:44 should do some reading about what can and can't be built on lots. The one storage shed applies to all lots. A lot with a house on it might also have a garage. All have to be approved by the county and/or the architectural committee. The concerns about sheds being moveable and of limited size should be directed to the County. And, one more time, if you don't like the rules, move.
A lot with a residence can have more than one storage shed. County approval is not required. You don't know what your talking about. You don't move. Your in the right place. Dumb woks good here.
One more time, if the rules are not fair they should be changed. In case you didn't notice, this was an act of bullying by the Board, pure and simple. Who's next?
A copy of the covenant regarding storage sheds follows: One storage shed per platted parcel whether a house or not on the parcel.
4.11 Storage Sheds: A storage shed is permitted on each platted parcel. Such storage shed must conform to applicable county codes. Storage sheds shall house objects only and shall not be used for occupancy. Storage sheds shall be placed on any acceptable location of the plot that is appropriate for their intended use, providing they meet setbacks. 4.11a Foundations shall conform to applicable County code 4.11b Maximum enclosed floor area shall be no greater than 120 square
Surfside Covenants amended 8-15-15.doc 19
feet. Height shall be no greater than 10 feet from the average grade level and not more than 1 story. 4.11c Construction materials shall conform to Section 4.5
The Pacific County ordinance for storage sheds follows. Parcels without a primary building or structure first established are limited to one storage shed. Parcels with a primary building or structure established may have up to 3 storage sheds. Therefore, parcels like RV lots that do not have a primary building or structure are limited to one storage shed while those with the primary building or structure may have three storage sheds as long as the parcel is not in Surfside.
4. One accessory storage building less than one hundred twenty (120) square feet may be allowed without the primary building or structure being first established on the lot and without a building permit being issued, if all of the following standards are met:
a. The storage building is less than one hundred twenty (120) square feet in size and less than ten (10) feet in height;
b. The storage building is temporary in nature in that it contains a floor constructed of wood or any other similar material, is placed on a temporary type of foundation such as pier blocks or skids, and is readily movable;
c. The storage building shall be placed in the side or rear portions of the property and may be placed to within five (5) feet of the rear and side property lines; and
d. The storage building is not to be used as sleeping quarters, nor shall it contain any plumbing.
5. A maximum of three (3) accessory storage buildings less than one hundred twenty (120) square feet may be allowed without a building permit being issued when placed on a lot containing a primary building or structure, provided all of the following standards are met:
ORDINANCE NO. 178 Page 120 of 168
a. The storage building is less than one hundred twenty (120) square feet in size and less than ten (10) feet in height;
b. The storage building is temporary in nature in that it contains a floor constructed of wood or any other similar material, is placed on a temporary type of foundation such as pier blocks or skids, and is readily movable;
c. The storage building shall be placed in the side or rear portions of the property, five (5) feet from any other structure, and may be placed to within five (5) feet of the rear and side property lines; and
d. The storage building is not to be used as sleeping quarters, nor shall it contain any plumbing.
Some of you think that you can use the county ordinances to get away with ignoring the Surfside covenants. WRONG! You agreed to abide by the covenants when you bought property in Surfside. That means that you are to follow what is approved by the architectural committee when you are in Surfside. If you want to change something approved by the committee, you should go back to the committee to request the change or addition.
Same old, same old 8:09.
You sound like a broken record. Give it a rest, Please.
Sorry 8:41, I'm with 8:09. It is not a broken record. It needs to be repeated because it gets repeatedly ignored. If Patrick would not of changed his plans after approval the issue would have been avoided. If he would have went back to get approval of his changed plans the issue would have been avoided. Add to that after the complaint was made if he would have appealed the complaint like the couple at the last board meeting and others do instead of running to a lawyer the issue would have been avoided.
Facts need repeating since they seem to keep being forgotten.
Blah, blah, blah.
Your with yourself and agree with yourself.
8:41 and 9:03. The broken record and constant repeating of blather is coming from you. You have nothing to add to this blog. Have you ever had a coherent thought in your life?
Why don't you try to read and think through the issues? Attack and you will get attacked. Your are bullying to try to achieve goals that serve only your self and a few others. Is it possible that you could consider the entire association and its members at any time?
The bottom line tactic of the few who want the changes that suit only their dreams have used manipulation of the facts and bullying from the start. The only way to deal with a bully is to push back harder or to humiliate him/her.
Easier yet, just stand back and let them make fools of themselves like is happening. This method takes longer but still does the job.
10:10.... This does not say that more than one shed cannot be approved. It is inferred that only one is allowed, but the text is not definitive. Notice also that electricity is apparently allowed.
Properties with a home can have a shed, possibly 3, a garage, and a workshop. As the County allows 3 sheds, Surfside policy may tend to allow only 3 outbuildings on stick-built lots.
There are few specifics, but the initial point was the different restrictions on RV lots. We don't know what the Arch Comm. has allowed on lots with homes, as there are no definitive guidelines. Variances can be allowed by the HOA as they choose, and no one but the Arch. Comm. knows for sure.
That's a reason why persecuting Johansen is a joke. There are hundreds of sheds in the community, and most are not visible to the public, and probably have never been inspected.
Notice the beginning of covenant 4.11. It says, "A storage shed is permitted . . ." Check your dictionary. "A" refers to ONE. The fact that the Surfside covenants are enforced using a complaint as the basis for enforcement has led to lots of violations. This does not excuse any member from complying with the covenants. The failure to fairly enforce the covenants is shameful. It creates a nasty and hate filled attitude amongst the members and a terrible reputation for the association.
Face it. Johansen created his own troubles. He will likely stir up more trouble with his property on the other side of the peninsula. Wait and see.
You get the last word 2:08 on this topic. I for one, am tired of seeing the same comments, probably by the same people, over and over again and again. Time to move on. End of comments.
Post a Comment