Mostly for the RV folks.
In my opinion...
We are a community that has many vacant (undeveloped) lots. Some of the lots, especially those along our waterways, due to septic county regulations, are not build able. Proximity to water, lot size and building square foot size is a contributing factor. Surfside requires more square footage for a dwelling than most of the County. Some of these lots would be build able by allowing smaller square footage for, say cabins.
Years ago the RV storage lot was developed for the RV people to store their RV';s that had to be removed from their lots during the Winter months. Recently, the time allowed for an RV to be on a lot was extended. Most of the restrictions apply to the West side, but also some on the East side. (East of the ridge) Years ago, the RV's were not as well constructed as the newer ones today. The older one could easily substain damage during our winter storms. There was and continues to be a perception that an RV located in a neighborhood or next to a dwelling, decreases the property value of the surrounding area. I do not know if this is a fact or any documents to prove this. I would expect that a County assessment or filing for a tax reduction could support that. A realtor might offer insight in this.
Currently, our RV storage lot is filled to capacity with a waiting list. My observation is that those who use the storage lot, mostly use the RV mostly here. Allowing a small cabin on a lot could reduce the demand for storage. There is some opposition for the small cabins, mostly for property values. True or not, I do not know. I have also observed that many if not most, who use their lot for RV, tend to take better care of the lot.
Having an RV in a residential community implies a higher degree of care and use than outside the community. More maintenance of the lot as well as better controlled camp fires with their smoke and noise control is expected. There should also be a visible address for any occupied property as required by our covenants. This requirement is to assist emergency response if needed.
RV folks pay the same dues and assessments as all the other members. Part of this is because the association utilities are available, whether used or not. A vacant or RV lot requires less cost for the association. From compactor to police, their dues and assessments reduce the expense for the rest of us. Build out of lots would not increase revenue for the association, in fact, the cost would increase.
That being said, the RV folks are getting a pretty good deal, compared to staying in a park or other location outside of Surfside.,
Treating the RV folks with the respect they deserve and appreciating their financial support would go a long way in improving a neighborly climate. There is to much harassment evident, in my opinion.
As for allowing RVs all year, I have mixed feelings on that. Maybe with a full time compliance officer and fair enforcement of rules and regulations, the concern for winter occupancy would be reduced.
I enjoy and appreciate their presence here. We are a recreational community. We are all here for the beach.
28 comments:
Prior to purchasing my undeveloped lot, my Lighthouse realtor told me I could live in my RV all year. She commented to me that I can live on my property if I want to. That made sense to me. Then I was told by SHOA and read in the SHOA CC&Rs something different.
I support RV use all year. I recommend the following Winter language. In Winter time the RV must be occupied continuously while the RV is on site. This compromise isn't very different from what it is now.
I support house structures at a minimum 500 square feet instead of 900 square feet.
9:50 - Sorry your realtor told you something wrong, or possibly miscommunicated the info. SHOA CC&R is always provided to the purchaser at least by closing time. My Lighthouse person suggested that I read it before I make offer, which I did.
My comments on your supports:
I support RV use all year. I recommend the following Winter language. In Winter time the RV must be occupied continuously while the RV is on site. This compromise isn't very different from what it is now. (Occupied continuously is very hard to monitor and open to wide interpretation of.)
I support house structures at a minimum 500 square feet instead of 900 square feet. (I support this also)
The county controls the year round living in RV's, they would have to agree to allow SS to be less strict than the current code.
Smaller square footage on homes should be allowed for those lots that can't support a larger home. But the Association does give out a variance for those cases, so I'm not sure what your issue is.
As for allowing RV's full time use. I WILL FIGHT YOU TOOTH And NAIL!!
I bought in Surfside because of the covenants. Change them to allow this and I will take the Association to court.
Thanks for the information 10:38 AM.
SHOA CC&Rs were never provided to me. I had to find the documents and read them myself prior to closing. I'm just stating my experience.
When I purchased I thought that CC&Rs were annually assessed and possible changes were voted on by the members.
10:47. The County Ordinance does allow for RVs to remain on properties year-round for “use or storage”, but not if it’s being lived in year round. However, this is obviously not enforced, which is why we have so many rundown RVs on the Peninsula.
We are full-time RVers, but we don’t live year-round in Pacific County. We also keep our RV operational and usually head south in the winter months. Last year we spent Nov on the Peninsula and the wind & rain were no fun in a motorhome. RVs do tend to deteriorate faster when left to sit, unless they are adequately winterized and covered - whether on your lot or in the Surfside storage area. We also own property in an RV community in Thurston County, which allows RV owners to build solid structures to cover the RV and allows 400 sq ft cabins. This provides a solution for us for when we decide to remain in the Northwest in the winter months.
I still believe all members should be given a chance to vote on this covenant - as well as all other covenants - which should reflect the wishes of the majority of members and be voted on in order to be enacted or changed. I would vote to leave it up to the property owner to use their lot for RV camping or storage whenever they want, but would also want RVs to be properly covered for storage. If we want to keep targeting RVers, we should not let slide all those who fail to maintain their homes and vehicles. The double-standard of same dues but less rights for RV lot owners needs to be eliminated.
My biggest gripe about Surfside is that we have 2200 members but they don’t have the right to propose and vote on changes to Covenants. The HOA should have rules and Covenants that the majority of members agree upon.
Deb, you keep spouting majority....YOUR WRONG!! The majority DO NOT want RV's left on properties.
This is what I mean about dishonest and manipulative!
You are going to physically fight me. I was bullied growing up and had to physically fight multiple times to stand up for myself. I'm not afraid of you.
Show us the vote by members proving your statement 12:26 PM. Post the vote results to the SHOA website for once.
262 total votes in November proves the majority does not care.
I never heard about that vote in November. I was at the meeting in November. There was no such vote. You are wrong. Where are the November 17 Meeting Minutes? Votes must be documented on the SHOA website per WA RCW. This BOT never does that. This BOT has no intention of being transparent. First you say majority don't want RVs left on properties then you say 262 votes out is 2,200ish and majority doesn't care. Those are two completely different statements.
12:25 - I was neither dishonest nor manipulative!
I didn’t say the majority does or does not want this. I said we should let the members decide and go with the majority.
I think we should have a vote on each covenant - whether to keep it, eliminate or amend it. We wlild keep what the majority wants and get rid of the rest. Of course, this would require an effort of the Board to engage and let all members vote, which would be simple if they would just let everyone vote my mail or online and not have a farce of a meeting with proxies.
Trash talk 1:02 Dec 11....George, you allow threat of physical harm?
I have heard several times that people were not aware of the covenants when they purchased property in Surfside. I would refer them to the general exceptions on there title policy it is clear. The first line states Subject to Surfside Estate Restrictive covenants. That would mean to me that maybe I should read them prior to buying property in Surfside.
Buyers have 10 day window to review HOA and on vacant land they also have a built in feasibility time
My my 10:58 aren't you something, narrow minds like this are why there is so much Ill will in this community.
County allows RVs on site full time but you cannot live in it .You CAN occupy it as frequently as you wish.
Go ahead. Waste your time and OUR money.
So you now speak for the majority?
NO, you do not!
The majority really doesn't care - look at the amount of active voters if you don't believe.
The 'dishonest and manipulative' statement amounts to bullying, and we're done with that. Im with the guy above - seen lots of bullies, not having it here.
only to known bullies....
Agreed. With the way things are now, if he wants a fight he will get one.
I'd be alright with the restriction lifted so I felt more free to use my property, but from personal experience, an RV left at the coast just plain sucks. My father in law leaves his for the summer time frame and that alone leaves it a mess, moisture inside is so hard to control, and the outside is beginning to rust on all the exposed metal.
Seeing this, I don't think I'll personally ever opt for leaving something here. Rather do a motorhome.
Read George’s latest post about the article in today’s Chinook Observer. Isn’t it ironic that everyone who has been so concerned over how the RVers being down property values, while the real threat has all along been the BOT? I wonder how home sales will fare as word spreads that we are being investigated by the State and Feds for violations related to the improper disposal of hazardous waste and failing to obtain required environmental studies and permits for the Carbon Treatment Plant? I don’t even want to know what this mess is going to cost the members for the fines, penalties, legal defense costs and potentially civil judgments awarded to employees who were exposed to hazardous materials? We are screwed!
The RV issue were simply the next shiny bright object that the board used to distract us from the garbage that was really going on.
You are correct in the fact we're screwed. Dissolution may well be the only answer.
Best case scenerio: padlock the office up and wait for the culprits to room with bubba. Have an official from the government go in and secure all files, documents, disk drives, computers, etc. before the Mob can destroy it. You think I sound crazy? Just wait. What is revealed will knock your socks off and bankrupt this HOA! Stay tuned to more exposure in Chinook Observer.
Your not crazy. Emails and documents have been requested by the feds. This is a much bigger deal than most can even imagine. Seven hundred dollar an hour lawyer giving individual advice to the law breakers should also be investigated. Member money to pay for that advice is illegal.
Well said!
Agreed!
Post a Comment