This is a forum to share and discuss information and issues about our homeowners association.
The blog host is not responsible for the content of comments.
As with all blogs, you have to use your own judgement as to the accuracy of the postings and comments.
Wednesday, September 19, 2018
Architectural Report
August 21, 2018 - September 11, 2018
Click on report to enlarge...
16 comments:
Steve Cox
said...
I recently commented that there are hundreds of sheds in Surfside, most where they cannot be seen easily. Surely many never were approved, and the HOA probably doesn't know how many exist, or where.
This is a significant problem with the Board's lawsuit against former Trustee Patrick Johansen. It is perfectly obvious that this has been a hostile attack on Johansen, and has nothing to do with his shed.
I never drive through the community trying to spot non-compliance, though some members apparently do. But I decided to drive north on G Street, looking for sheds with porches. Between the south end of G to Oysterville Rd. there are 6 sheds with porches that are easily seen from the street, 4 of them on RV lots. Most are very nice to beautiful in construction, yet by the standard the BOT is trying to defend in court, ALL in violation of a covenant that would ban porches and limit eave overhangs.
If the HOA continues to pursue this lawsuit and prevails - all other sheds in violation should be altered to conform to this arbitrary standard. I doubt that any of the owners who have such non-conforming sheds will take kindly to being told their sheds must be porchless.
It is unlikely the HOA will prevail in Court, as this is a completely audacious showing of HOA harassment and monetary power, in which case, the members of Surfside will have to pay for Patrick's legal expenses. But the fact is, the lawsuit singles out one member who has a conflict with president Gary Williams, and pretends that none of these other sheds with porches exist.
It seems clear that there has not been a solid standard adhered to in approving sheds in Surfside, and many sheds exist in the community that have porches. Time to withdraw the lawsuit Gary !!
Well spoken Steve! This whole overhang on sheds is nuts. Fully agree that it’s time to be a big boy,Williams, and let it go. BTW: let’s have Williams pick up the tab for his “fight” with Patrick.
Been told that surfside has dropped the law suite against Johansen. Now the question is, will Johansen sue to collect the thousands of dollars he has spent on legal fees in a suite they have dropped? Probably. The Williams faction brought this all on themselves, and guess who is going to pay the bill? Not Williams. Also been told the new owner of the Johansen lots has been told he needs to remove the shed extension. By who and how, I don't know. He is not a happy camper, but has removed it. Welcome to Surfside.
Send Williams the bill! What a self serving jerk to have pursued his ego driven suit. Time for him to be gone from the BOD. Members: start demanding his resignation.
4:09.... Yes the lawsuit has been retracted. No, the shed porch has not been removed, and SHOULDN"T BE !! There are sheds with porches all over the community, and there have been for some time now. There are at least 10 between I St. and G St., from the office north to Oysterville Rd. Some are on RV lots, some on lots with homes.
Pity on the new owner of Patrick’s lot. He inherited a real dandy situation. Been told he was told he would be part of the lawsuit if he didn’t remove overhang. Pathetic ego driven morons that were nobodys and now these board members act like czars. You will get yours! !
I don't understand how if SHOA won, and it was approved the covenants change that all sheds will now be forced to be compliant. The covenant didn't exist, but now that it does, any shed that has an overhang must be hacked?
The rule didn't exist. We don't know if it was in the plans or not shared with the Architectural committee, but I would imagine many were. And to go back and say "yeah well, the rule changed, cut it off" is absurd. This is where people are grandfathered in.
12:51 that may be true, but in example: even if a shed had a 2' eave, it would be non compliant and the owner be forced to cut off 6" from say a shed eve they've had for 10 years.
It's clear they're motivated to control the eave lengths, but it isn't anyone's fault this wasn't established in the covenants. This criteria shouldn't be left to the thumb up or down by a committee of volunteers.
It either meets written criteria or it doesn't. That is about as absurd as say the committee denying plans for a home because they didn't like open kitchen concepts - it's not their business. What is their business is overall height, square footage, and other controlled variables.
So in this case, someone had a slight lack of attention to detail and didn't think to add the eave length to the scope of controlled variables. Now since this scandal happens, they took it to court to demand their opinion - just that, and opinion they don't want long overhangs. As a result a push for a 18" eave limit is now on the table.
Again, if that is approved, how can you go and make everyone chop off their eaves to 18"? The control/rule was missed. Oops. Just add it in if that is what the people actually want, and move on. rest are grandfathered. Sheds don't last forever, and when that longer eave is damaged, you must comply to new standard. Done...
Imagine if you had purchased a home with a nice shop that was right on the border of your property? This shop was there before the borders were made, you are now grandfathered and no worries of setbacks. Imagine if some BOT twit came and said you now need to knock that shop down because it isn't 5' from the property edge? BS right? Same situation here...
The lawsuit was dropped - after dogging Johansen and others for more than 2 years, at a cost of well over $60,000. SHOA didn't WIN anything. The BOT finally dropped the suit. And the covenant change IS NOT a done deal ! It has not been presented to the membership for comment and review, and must be approved by an affirmative vote of the majority of members attending a "Special Meeting" called as a "members" meeting, OR an Annual Meeting. This is all written in the covenants but the BOT can't seem to follow the procedure.
5:10 you are wrong, the board votes on the covenant change, not the membership. It was approved at the August board meeting. It was presented at the annual meeting and was in the information you received with the ballot. You need to go back and re-read the articles again
That's interesting, as I haven't heard or read ANYTHING stating that this occurred. The HOA doesn't consider REAL transparency a responsibility. Most of the information that comes through to the membership comes from this BLOG !
I am aware that the BOT has the final say, AFTER being presented to the membership for comment and a vote. That took place eh ?
How in the HELL did this HOA get to where it is now.! How can SHOA ever recover? Please give me a glimpse of hope that this association can be turned around to what it originally was established for. It’s one big circus with a ringmaster(Williams) and his host of clowns and puppets.
16 comments:
I recently commented that there are hundreds of sheds in Surfside, most where they cannot be seen easily. Surely many never were approved, and the HOA probably doesn't know how many exist, or where.
This is a significant problem with the Board's lawsuit against former Trustee Patrick Johansen. It is perfectly obvious that this has been a hostile attack on Johansen, and has nothing to do with his shed.
I never drive through the community trying to spot non-compliance, though some members apparently do. But I decided to drive north on G Street, looking for sheds with porches. Between the south end of G to Oysterville Rd. there are 6 sheds with porches that are easily seen from the street, 4 of them on RV lots. Most are very nice to beautiful in construction, yet by the standard the BOT is trying to defend in court, ALL in violation of a covenant that would ban porches and limit eave overhangs.
If the HOA continues to pursue this lawsuit and prevails - all other sheds in violation should be altered to conform to this arbitrary standard. I doubt that any of the owners who have such non-conforming sheds will take kindly to being told their sheds must be porchless.
It is unlikely the HOA will prevail in Court, as this is a completely audacious showing of HOA harassment and monetary power, in which case, the members of Surfside will have to pay for Patrick's legal expenses. But the fact is, the lawsuit singles out one member who has a conflict with president Gary Williams, and pretends that none of these other sheds with porches exist.
It seems clear that there has not been a solid standard adhered to in approving sheds in Surfside, and many sheds exist in the community that have porches. Time to withdraw the lawsuit Gary !!
Well spoken Steve! This whole overhang on sheds is nuts. Fully agree that it’s time to be a big boy,Williams, and let it go. BTW: let’s have Williams pick up the tab for his “fight” with Patrick.
Been told that surfside has dropped the law suite against Johansen. Now the question is, will Johansen sue to collect the thousands of dollars he has spent on legal fees in a suite they have dropped? Probably. The Williams faction brought this all on themselves, and guess who is going to pay the bill? Not Williams. Also been told the new owner of the Johansen lots has been told he needs to remove the shed extension. By who and how, I don't know. He is not a happy camper, but has removed it. Welcome to Surfside.
Forgot to say that I was told this by a friend of a board member. Seems true to me.
Send Williams the bill! What a self serving jerk to have pursued his ego driven suit. Time for him to be gone from the BOD. Members: start demanding his resignation.
4:09.... Yes the lawsuit has been retracted. No, the shed porch has not been removed, and SHOULDN"T BE !! There are sheds with porches all over the community, and there have been for some time now. There are at least 10 between I St. and G St., from the office north to Oysterville Rd. Some are on RV lots, some on lots with homes.
You are mistaken Steve, it was removed.
Pity on the new owner of Patrick’s lot. He inherited a real dandy situation. Been told he was told he would be part of the lawsuit if he didn’t remove overhang. Pathetic ego driven morons that were nobodys and now these board members act like czars. You will get yours! !
I don't understand how if SHOA won, and it was approved the covenants change that all sheds will now be forced to be compliant. The covenant didn't exist, but now that it does, any shed that has an overhang must be hacked?
The rule didn't exist. We don't know if it was in the plans or not shared with the Architectural committee, but I would imagine many were. And to go back and say "yeah well, the rule changed, cut it off" is absurd. This is where people are grandfathered in.
The committee has never approved a 10' extension off the side of a shed, if someone has that they did it without approval
12:51 that may be true, but in example: even if a shed had a 2' eave, it would be non compliant and the owner be forced to cut off 6" from say a shed eve they've had for 10 years.
It's clear they're motivated to control the eave lengths, but it isn't anyone's fault this wasn't established in the covenants. This criteria shouldn't be left to the thumb up or down by a committee of volunteers.
It either meets written criteria or it doesn't. That is about as absurd as say the committee denying plans for a home because they didn't like open kitchen concepts - it's not their business. What is their business is overall height, square footage, and other controlled variables.
So in this case, someone had a slight lack of attention to detail and didn't think to add the eave length to the scope of controlled variables. Now since this scandal happens, they took it to court to demand their opinion - just that, and opinion they don't want long overhangs. As a result a push for a 18" eave limit is now on the table.
Again, if that is approved, how can you go and make everyone chop off their eaves to 18"? The control/rule was missed. Oops. Just add it in if that is what the people actually want, and move on. rest are grandfathered. Sheds don't last forever, and when that longer eave is damaged, you must comply to new standard. Done...
Imagine if you had purchased a home with a nice shop that was right on the border of your property? This shop was there before the borders were made, you are now grandfathered and no worries of setbacks. Imagine if some BOT twit came and said you now need to knock that shop down because it isn't 5' from the property edge? BS right? Same situation here...
The lawsuit was dropped - after dogging Johansen and others for more than 2 years, at a cost of well over $60,000. SHOA didn't WIN anything. The BOT finally dropped the suit. And the covenant change IS NOT a done deal ! It has not been presented to the membership for comment and review, and must be approved by an affirmative vote of the majority of members attending a "Special Meeting" called as a "members" meeting, OR an Annual Meeting. This is all written in the covenants but the BOT can't seem to follow the procedure.
5:10 you are wrong, the board votes on the covenant change, not the membership. It was approved at the August board meeting. It was presented at the annual meeting and was in the information you received with the ballot.
You need to go back and re-read the articles again
That's interesting, as I haven't heard or read ANYTHING stating that this occurred. The HOA doesn't consider REAL transparency a responsibility. Most of the information that comes through to the membership comes from this BLOG !
I am aware that the BOT has the final say, AFTER being presented to the membership for comment and a vote. That took place eh ?
How in the HELL did this HOA get to where it is now.! How can SHOA ever recover? Please give me a glimpse of hope that this association can be turned around to what it originally was established for. It’s one big circus with a ringmaster(Williams) and his host of clowns and puppets.
Go to the website and pull up the covenants, you can also read meeting minutes posted there with all the information you claim isn't being given out.
Post a Comment