Readers of the local newspaper, The Chinook Observer, may have seen the notice in the legal section of an action filed in Superior Court, against a member over tree complaints and fines. This is a good representation of the costs and stress caused by a tree height covenant and enforcement pushed by the Tree Committee.
Is the goal to get compliance or continue with harassment and punishment? It has been a past practice to drop fines if the property is brought into compliance. Keep in mind that there are always two sides to a story. The owners of this property live in Redding California. Several years ago, before the Tree Committee was under new management, there were always agreements made with property owners of over height trees brought into compliance at a date that was convenient for the members, especially if they lived out of state. This lot was cleared by a contractor at a probable cost of thousands.
The Surfside property in violation is located at 31401 J Place. This is on the West side of J Place in a lot that slopes down hill toward I Street. Below is the notice from the news paper. The pictures before and after are from Tax sifter and picture I took today of the cleared lot.
Click on each to enlarge.
 |
| It is obvious that these trees have been topped in the past. Another topping will probably kill them. We will see this more and more as the trees mature. |
 |
| It's in compliance now with trees being removed from the worst place you could remove trees...a slope. Now the water can run off and a sunny spot for invasive weeds and gorsh to root. The poor owner with the exposed back porch now faces violation for obtrusive lighting if they turn the back porch light on.....Welcome to Surfside. |
58 comments:
Thieves love it when we turn our light out at night. The darkness makes them feel secure when snooping around your property and home.
looks like the notice accomplished what is set out to do. Appears that a nice clean job was done. The owners now have some wood to burn. The grass will recover and keep the lot from sluffing away. no need to be an alarmist here.
If they keep cutting down all the trees, the poor tree committee won't have anything to do. Maybe they could have a bake sale. They could sell some of those special recipe brownies and everyone would be happy.
What a dysfunctional community. We have Covenants to protect the views of those who live on the ridge, without ever mentioning protection of views. We expect property owners to pay to trim or remove healthy trees, diminishing the looks and value of their property for the benefit of someone else’s view. We let a handful of members who personally benefit from the policy be in charge of enforcement. We spend member-financed operational funds to sue our members and compel this action. I’m guessing less than 10% of the members benefit from this Covenant, yet the other 90% are powerless to change it. Unless we are willing to elect a new Board and amend our governing documents to increase participation in elections and the content of our Covenants. If the majority of the members wish to have tree height limits, that’s fine, but all members should have a voice in this.
The single minded opinions that the tree covenant serves only one purpose is beyond reason. Grown up folks. There can be more than one reason or benefit realized from trimming the trees.
The butchered trees pictured are testimony to owners who failed to attend to their trees in a timely and healthy way creating a bunch of scraggly, unhealthy and ugly trees. The dysfunction is with the owners who fail to take care of the responsibilities they agreed to when they purchased their property.
One more time, Blagg does not fully understand an issue but remains ever ready to offer her opinionated, self serving views.
This is an elitist rip-off of a policy and most in the community recognize it needs to go. I agree with Blagg as do many, if not most owners. This is a freak show that Surfside exercises to intimidate owners, and does not represent mainstream America's thinking or values. This type of policy is rare in the entire country and is generally associated with very expensive neighborhoods and HOAs that manipulate everything owners do.
This is NOT that kind of community but pretends that there is a very elite element that gets what they want as a lure to higher end buyers. This lawsuit is a complete joke to be brought with such audacity at a time when the HOA Board has failed so miserably we are hemoraging money. This is more of William's warped attitude, burning through more of our membership funds, and will not benefit this community, for the sake of placating Mr. William's ego.
Disgusting ! We apparently have lawyers working on more than one front, with the HOA unwilling to inform the members what the BOT is up to, besides gambling and pissing away OUR money on unnecessary legal pursuits, at as much as $700/hour.
Local realtors are obligated by law to disclose to all prospective buyers, the legal bind Surfside is in as a result of the EPA criminal investigation and extensive fines levied on Surfside. The HOA has no idea what the outcome will be of this incredible failure of Surfside's management, our community already in serious debt and spending money like there is no tomorrow.
Must add narrow minded to single minded views in regard to the trees in Surfside. Step back, take a breath and try to consider all sides of the issue in order to best represent the biggest benefit to the whole association.
You are incapable of recognizing how totally ridiculous this lawsuit is. The Johansen lawsuit burned through about $75,000 on a similarly lame lawsuit, withdrawing the lawsuit at a total loss to the community. That was over shed roof overhangs and this is about tree trimming in an area that must be limited to about 14 ft. looking at the ridiculous stubs that are "not in compliance". How urgent can cutting a few inches off the top of some trees be ? It isn't significant.
These are "issues" that can and should be easily settled without any expense or legal pursuit. There is nothing gained by trying to shame owners in these situations, nor to try to hurt them financially. There is no shame to the HOA to make a compromise for the sake of everyone concerned.
The HOA BOT needs to focus on digging us out of the mess they put the community in, far more significant than a few trees that can wait for a time the owner can afford to deal with them. The real shame is that the BOT is not willing to acknowledge to the membership, their colossal failure to manage the Water Dept. and procedures there, which is their responsibility.
Any HOA must defend its covenants. It is similar to a contractual agreement with every member of the HOA. It is not a matter of negotiations. It is a matter of compliance or not.
agreed 1029. manage your trees or cut them down, they will grow back.
An HOA should establish Covenants that reflect the desires of the majority of the residents. The residents should be permitted to propose and vote on the Covenants and changes thereto. Additionally, the HOA should enforce all Covenants as written consistently, not by making flawed interpretations and influencing government officials to weigh in on private disputes. Covenants are not cast in stone - they can and should be periodically reviewed and amended to reflect the community’s wishes. Our governing documents contain provisions for making changes. We all knew this when we bought our properties. The challenge we face is electing Trustees who give a damn about the wishes of the HOA as a whole, rather than just their own agenda and that of their friends.
Many more than 2,000 members have agreed to follow the covenants as they existed when they purchased their property. A few, recent, remorseful purchasers don't get to change the rules to serve themselves. You step on a lot of toes when you change what members have agreed to over the years. Amending covenants to better meet the concerns of members as later developments have is one thing. Tossing out a long existing covenant is an entirely different matter. Some newer members appear to want to trash what has been with no regard for how this might affect other members. Anyone who bought their property with goals to change things to suit themselves is shortsighted and a lousy neighbor in any hoa.
130 I mostly agree with you, but would like to add. I moved here because I liked most of the covenants. But I do think they could be reviewed and tweaked now and then. That said, any changes to the covenants that have negative effect on the value of an existing member's property(s), those members should be compensated by the members who voted for the change. And we do know who voted for what.
2:03 I must have missed it some where. I have to maintain views for others at my expense while they pay nothing. This item should be put to a vote with the membership and the majority should rule.
Was going to post under employee of the year, but may fit better here. We all know that the complaint system is supposed to be "neighbor driven". In other words if your neighbor sees what they feel is a violation of the covenants, they should discuss it with the "offender" and if no resolution is achieved, file a complaint. So for the property above, who filed the complaint? Was it the neighbor on the other side of J Place or was it the neighbor on I Street. Odds are it was neither. Here is where we come to the "employee of the year". Although not an official paid employee, there is a former member of the BOT who may have up to 30 active tree complaints going at any one time. They are written up, no conversation with the "offenders" and the Tree Committee charges out to make the measurement, followed by the issuance of a complaint letter. Didn't realize the "view" you were obstructing was up to a mile away from your lot did you? All part of the community togetherness programs. By the way, for all of those folks who want to treat the covenants as though they were the ten commandments (cast in stone)Your memory is slipping. It was just recently that the BOT changed the shed (or reasonable facsimile) ruling so your "overhang" couldn't be more than 18 inches. I believe that is called a change? Did we vote on it? Not only do they want this now and forever more, but they want to make it retroactive, ie a change that predates what we have lived with for the past 50 years. So if you built your "shed" and within the last 50 years, you may now be in violation and forced to destroy or alter your 50 year old shed. Now we all know that the disastrous (and expensive- legal budget overrun of at least $30k) folly against some members is what caused this. They made a bad decision and sought to legitimize it. Sort of Bad after Bad. Point is, the covenants can and should be changed, not only by the BOT but by actions the members can take. Don't get me wrong, as long as we are stuck with these 50 year old rules, we should comply with them to the best of our ability, but, the world, the environment, and mostly people have changed over the last 50 years, lets catch up. By the way, it appears that whomever set up the tree limitations obviously never took a lesson in geometry.
No matter how irresponsible the Board of Trustees are, they get a free pass from the "status-Quo crowd". About $75,000 were wasted on the Johansen lawsuit, we owe another $27,000 in fines, plus $10,000 fined over the lack of proper permitting on the CTplant and holding pond, plus the $60,000 needed to replace the carbon element in the new water plant, plus the large payment intended to the Reserves, which probably has not been made, plus the fines that will be levied by the EPA, plus the continued abuse of spending on legal consultation - how much on this stupid tree lawsuit ?
What will the total be in legal counsel on the Asbestos Debacle and what will we owe to the employees (7 of 9 were exposed recklessly to asbestos)when this pitiful failure of management is finally complete ? The same Trustees who watched this go on for several YEARS are still on the Board, unwilling to take any action against Flood who is primary in this failure, and Williams, who has no respect for State law or mandated procedures, and spends our money at his discretion, like a drunken sailor.
No one on the Board has come forward and expressed interest in making an apology for their reckless decisions, to the employees who were ignored in all of this, and the Board continues to piddle around with these trivial lawsuits over shed overhangs and trees a few inches over the limit. This is an embarrassment of errors, self-entitlement, and irresponsibility, and it will impact this community for a very long time, The word is out that this community is bad news because its' HOA is a bunch of "good ol boys" who do what they want, without regard for the membership.
At minimum, Surfside's present and former employees deserve lifetime health monitoring for asbestos exposure.
The cost for emplyees will be more than just monitoring.
What about the guy who took the pictures of the stacks of broken and crushed pipe in the well field? It was a sunny day with the usual wind blowing. And yes, he had permission to be there and was not alone. What about all the members who walked by the pipe when it was left laying along the streets? Do all those other than the workers, have any rights? The contractors building the base and installing the carbon treatment plant were down wind by feet from the pipe. What about them? This mess is far bigger than anyone knows.
Surfside has areas where there is no tree height restrictions as there are areas that allow mobile homes and RV's stored all year long.
What I don't understand is why live in an area that has these restrictions, when there are areas that don't? Talk about entitlement!
Because not all areas have view lots and snobs.
Most of the community has restrictions. Most people have numerous things they hope to find in a realty purchase, but must make compromises based on what is actually available. What is often pointed out is, none of the covenants are intended to be permanent, and most owners expect the HOA to only enforce standards that serve the community well, or make corrective changes.
Instead, we have a Board that in the midst of the Water Dept. disaster of their own making, have enacted a new restriction on Surfside shed roofs that they knew would put dozens of nicely built sheds into non-compliance, brought an indefensible lawsuit against 2 owners at a cost to the membership of about $75,000, withdrew the lawsuit, and quickly brought suit against another owner over tree heights that has no real impact on the community.
All such diminutive issues should be easily and wisely resolved without needing to take anyone to Superior Court. What the hell are these people thinking ? BOT irresponsibility has made Surfside properties a hot potato for any new buyers. Why buy in Surfside when they are bankrupting their HOA with stupid decisions ? The word is out - Surfside is a gamble best not taken by new buyers.
To purposely purchase a lot with the intent to change the covenants, to suit your needs, is the definition of entitlement.
4:38. I’ve not read any comments on this blog or elsewhere to indicate people purchased property in Surfside with the intent to change the Covenants. Many people, myself included, have said that prior to purchasing our properties we were aware the Covenants had a provision by which they can be changed. This provision assuaged our concerns because we assumed that if a majority of members felt a Covenant should be amended, added or eliminated, it could be presented to the Board and would be given due consideration. The option to amend the Covenants is common of most HOAs; what is uncommon about Surfside is that there is no process for Board review or member feedback on Covenants, no process for Members to propose changes to Covenants and the Board can change the Covenants without the approval of members. Speaking for Chuck and myself, we really had no idea how unfair the Covenants are - and how inconsistently they are enforced - until we experienced being property owners and hearing other members’ concerns. We are an association of over 2200 members. It is not unfair or unreasonable to amend the Covenants of the majority of members believe to do so would be in the best interests of the membership as a whole. If the majority of members feel the membership as whole would be better served by amending or eliminating the tree height limits, this should happen. What is most important is that we amend our governing documents to implement a fair & transparent process by which members can voice concerns, propose Covenant changes, participate in town hall discussions on changes and then vote on proposed changes. If the United States operated like Surfside, there would be no constitutional amendments, slavery would be legal, women and African Americans would not have the right vote and there would be only 13 states - because everyone who immigrated to America new what the Constitution said when they moved here.
4:38 needs to get a new dictionary.
Slavery now? I may not agree with you on most things but I will give you credit for having the gift of hyperbole.
Blagg seems to think that when you sign on the dotted line agreeing to do something that it is an open door to changing the terms of the agreement. She steadily politics to have things changed to suit her personal whims. Has anyone else used social media to form a limited issue coalition to support her personal ideas for changes? Nope! Hyperbole is only one of her deceitful ploys.
Once more time, Deb is entitled to her opinions, and certainly makes more sense than your post.
I sense a bit of self interest repeating itself, and not on Deb's side.
As to single mindedness, you seem to have that covered. Go ahead. Support bad governance.
Or a majority of hand picked Board members to pursue their special interests.
Thats utter crap.
Nobody said covenants last forever. As voting members, we have the right to view and recommend modifications. This would happen as in normal course of business in a functional HOA.
In our dysfunctional version, the HOA is controlled by a special interest group (BOT) that effectively denies us the right of change. They hand pick their oncoming Board members, and control the outcomes, based on ego and disregard for the very rules they are supposed to uphold.
You bag on Deb, but pimp for these people. Shameful.
Blagg - It truly does not make sense to invest in property that includes covenants with which you do not agree with the intent to change things to suit yourself with no regard for those who support the existing covenants. There are lots of options for property ownership that do not include the covenants that you find so offensive. Your willingness to bend the rules to achieve your personal goals testifies to your character. I'm sure Turkey has some ocean front property that would better suit you.
8:46. Again, we did not buy our property with the intent to change any Covenants. Overall we believe Covenants are good for the community, we just believe the owners should have the ability to amend and approve them. We also believe that expecting members to file complaints against their neighbors to enforce Covenants is divisive and ineffective. Also, the selective enforcement of the Covenants is unfair. There are many examples of Covenant violations throughout Surfside, which the HOA ignores. Keep up the personal attacks and manipulation of anything said on this blog which you disagree with, because we all know you have no reasonable basis for defending the status quo, other than than you are the status quo.
8:46 is so convinced of this absurd claim it is just pitiful. Blagg is by no means the first to express disagreement on Surfside covenants. The current Tree restrictions replaced other covenants that were removed by the BOT on advice from an attorney, that protected views of J Place owners. The rules were changed to avoid the appearance of enforcing unequal rights among owners, which of course is true.
So the current restrictions are tied to already existent home height limits in order to placate J Place owners. THAT is elitism, and the BOT and J Place owners have no problem creating discord in the community with standards that make the community ugly and unappealing, many lots opting for a parking lot for their RVs without trees.
These standards have assured that a substantial number of properties have minimal resale value, while 24 ft homes with beach properties block the views - not trees. In an area with 14ft. restrictions, which is what appears to be the case with the property taken to Superior Court recently, at what point is the height considered a violation ? 14 ft, 1 inch ? How critical can it possibly be that the "offending trees" be cut at 14 feet 1 inch ?
In general, such covenants are guidelines and should never be treated as an urgent matter, giving owners time to comply as Larry Raymer was well known for as Tree Comm. chairman. Covenants should be enforced without creating undo challenges to owners, avoiding legal action key to the HOA's successful management and future.
Looking at the fact that Tree height compliance is the lion's share of enforcement efforts, and compounds monthly year after year - the community doesn't want this in large part, and the BOT is unwilling to get rid of this nuisance that serves mainly to intimidate owners w/the power of the HOA to hassle them continually forever.
Get real- no one moves here "planning" to change the covenants. That is idiotic. Blagg speaks to what is likely the majority of owners, who recognize how damaging and useless this policy is. Someone will have to begin the movement to change Surfside in the face of a spendthrift president enabled by a helpless Board, and a colossal crisis caused by mismanagement.
That is Deb's only intention. It isn't her agenda, it's time to focus on resolving the crisis, which the Board has yet to acknowledge exists, and has for a couple of months now.
LETS BEGIN THE MOVEMENT! Deb is one of a few that won’t be bullied by the elitists. More power to her! Would love nothing better than banning this crazy tree covenant. The only downside: MS OBNOXIOUS would be without a committee to run. Maybe she will go volunteer at the Food Bank which is so much more productive and worthy!
Blagg - You are so very wrong about guessing who makes comments. I suggest you knock it off. It quite simply again points to the arrogance of your character.
I laugh at your now frequent usage of key words on this blog because you stole them from me. The first appearance of "status quo" and many other of your stolen phrases and concepts have been plagiarized from my comments. It is not a personal attack to call out your BS on a blog. It is agreed that complaint enforcement of covenants is unfair. The covenants should be fairly enforced in a timely and consistent manner. Your energy would be better spent in pursuing issues where there is an arena of majority agreement. The only members who would object to fair and timely covenant enforcement are those who are not in compliance. Making this change would lead to a more informed membership and the possibility of reasoned and reasonable amendments to the covenants. Why not become an effective change agent instead of a deceitful maverick?
Yes, that's for sure.
The only reason this HOA exists is the fact the "customers" are tethered to their "investment". If we could just walk away, say like an Amazon membership, this ship would have sunk years ago.
With a true focus on customer needs, it would take real deep leadership skills to negotiate things like complaints in a stepped, tactful, and well thought out manner. There wouldn't be any slamming of the panic button (law$uit) each time something goes awry. Instead that would be a well documented and exhaustive last resort. When that does happen, it's nothing more than a hand off with a significant cost. No different than yelling MOMMMMM! when you sibling isn't toeing your line.
The Tree thing is a joke agreed. In many cities where similar rules are in place, if an owner doesn't comply, they simply do the work and bill the owner. Why isn't that a part of the rules? Why supreme court?
Too many examples of folks "volunteering" and showing they unfortunately don't have the proper skill set for this "business". SHOA BOT isn't a place to finally get that title you never deserved. It's simply a place to exercise skills you in fact have and help better the association as a team.
Fed up.... Guess you can't figure out WHAT you support, as in your comment you both support Blagg's efforts and disrespect her for being outspoken. Anyone who takes a stand opens themselves to criticism, but the only way anything in Surfside is going to change is for folks like "Fed-up" to commit to working toward some basic changes and stop nit-picking every aspect of each personality who may try to give such an effort motion.
If you're fed-up, you should recognize that no one on the BOT is interested in changing anything, and we have no community-wide communications to speak to the issues, find common objectives, and try to set a new course. Deb is encouraging owners to talk about the issues, designate some leaders, and put people on the BOT who can help the community reorganize. This is NOT about her. We need a BOT that shows owners more respect, and has the sense to stay out of Superior Court.
And who is this delusional person who claims to be the sole author of terms like "status-quo" ? There are many wordsmiths on the blog who write very well without your help. We all work from a collective memory bank, adding and removing expressions from our mental file over time.
11:31 sez...It just occurred to me that the intention was to refer to the Tree Comm. chair rather than Deb as MS. OBNOXIOUS. It's not really clear friend. But my comments try to put Deb's goals in perspective. We have big problems that can only be resolved by a whole new attitude, and that is a tall order in this isolated community.
The current operating theme is apparently that Williams wants to be the badass who sets the community right, and is convinced the president of the Board doesn't need to follow no stinking rules. How's that working out ?
Bag on and deflect. Begone TROLL!
Keep in mind that the rules, as written, give all the power to the BOT. It doesn't matter how many members vote for anything...unless the BOT decides to adopt that change it will never happen. All changes to the rules must be approved by the BOT, period. Even if all 2200 members vote for any issue, the BOT can simply ignore the vote and do something else that they think is a better answer. Sad but true. Nothing binds the BOT to follow what the members say in voting.
122 That's why you vote in people to the BOT that will vote the will of the people
Everyone knows Ms Obnoxious IS NOT Deb. This tree czar lives on J and thinks her pooey don’t stink. She’s a phony too! Deb is my hero for speaking up to the CLAN.
Stickbuiltless - To get the SHOA you envision please agree to double your dues. I agree we need massive change. Even without the current mess we'll all want to sell our properties some day (hopefully for a modest to obscene profit)or leave it to our kids. We would have an infrastructure to be proud of. RV'ers and home owners would take pride in their lots. If this was a destination development we wouldn't put up with all we are governed. But as long as people cry woe me nothing will change.
Wow. It boggles the mind how someone like feddy there can be so focus on a vendetta on one individual. What did the tree chair do to you to hurt your feelings so much? Probably schooled you at a meeting or somewhere and made you look foolish. Since you couldn't take it you attack from the shadows. So shameful and pitiful.
Happy for you you have found a place where you can be so brave.
Use your name then chicken, bok, bok, bok. Big hypocrite we all see in plain site. Come on tough guy, you found the same place to hide your identity.
He probably was victimized by the Board, kinda like the rest of us....at least the ones that aren't part of your cult.
We are victimized by lack of communication, willful ignorance of policy and procedure, to say nothing of the secret meetings and Board appointments.
The only real question I have at this point is whether the current board members will resign with the hope of saving the organization, or carry it down in flames with them. My bet's on the latter.
Just because someone has a view lot doesn't make them a snob. I just purchased my home in September. It is on J and has a view. My sister and I both have mobility issues and mostly purchased for the view and single floor accessibility. I was told about the height restriction of buildings and trees and that the view would be protected. We also purchased this home because we needed a peaceful place to be as we've experienced many family deaths recently, 1 being my wife 4 years ago and Dec 23rd our oldest sister. I do not feel entitled or better than anyone else. I'm also just hearing about these issues and reading now.
1:38 Welcome to Surfside. Everyone on J Place are not snobs. I know other people who live on J Place who are not snobs and actually oppose the BOT and support changes to our governing documents to allow electronic voting and give members a voice and vote on the Covenants. I hope that when you purchased your property you were not told that your view would be protected. If you read the Covenants, you wil note that they say nothing about protecting views. The tree height limits are arbitrarily established for geographical divisions of Surfside only and do not exist for most of Surfside. The BOT could change the tree heights or eliminate them all together. Myself and many other members would like to see them changed - but we would like to work with the J Place homeowners like yourself to find a way to do this fairly for everyone. We believe trees should be trimmed or removed for safety reasons only and that they should be consistent throughout Surfside. If someone wants their neighbor to trim a tree to protect a view, that should be worked out between the J Place owner and the tree owner, with the J Place owner paying or at least sharing the cost. Right now we have hundreds of members who must cut their trees to arbitrary heights and pay out of their own pocket. Often this results in trees that later die off or they look terrible, ruining the value of the property owner with the trees. I understand your desire to preserve the beautiful view from the ridge, but bear in mind you were not promised a view.
bok, bok, bok? What does that even mean? I'm sure 6:09 is shaking in his/hers boots.
To 1:38:
First off, sorry for your loss of wife and sister. Also welcome to the community. A little advice, best to sit back and enjoy the view of the ocean and all of the animals that walk and fly by and avoid coming on here. People who live on J are treated like the scourge of the earth here on this site. If not be prepared to be called a bunch of names, just because of where you live.
Many of us lowlanders on the west side responsibly take care of our trees to be compliant with the existing covenants. It truly is a matter of a few, loud mouths in stirring up the tree issue. Most of us lowlanders realize that taller shore pines and trees blow over or blow apart in the occasional strong wind storms. We also take care to protect ourselves from wild fire dangers that are increased with unhealthy trees and vegetation around our homes. The truth is that it is mostly a matter of undeveloped lots or RV lots that involve irresponsibility in lot upkeep.
Those who badmouth the members who own on J demonstrate ugly envy and reveal their true nasty characters.
How dare you make the comment that rv lots are the majority of unkept properties. You are the ugly, nasty character to put that label on rv lots. Any wonder why there is such a hostile environment and reputation of Surfside. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Truth sometimes hurts doesn't it.
I don't think many members would presume that J Place owners are all snobs or elitists. It isn't rational to make any such assumptions, in the same sense that race or financial status does not make us who we are.
It may sound like a personal attack at times when the Tree Policy is criticized, the policy created for the benefit of selling ridgetop properties. Buying on J Pl. is just a choice some will make because the opportunity has presented itself. Neither is it J Place owner's individual responsibilities to compel the HOA to cease this crazy policy.
This is a policy that is no longer needed. It has clearly damaged the community, and tanked the property values of many in the most restricted zones. It IS an elitist policy that has been in place for decades, and can't be blamed solely on J Place owners, when most of the violations are filed by the Tree Committee. This has become an uncontrollable obsession for the BOT and Tree Comm., and they simply can't stop. It needs to end !
Doing away with tree heights. Does that imply that housing restrictions will also be done away with? If you have a tree of 16' or even higher why not a house. I was restricted to 16'. I would have loved to build higher but could not. One goes hand in hand with the other. Leave the ccr's alone.
good point 10:45, I would have wanted to go higher also when I built. from west side lowlander who likes the tree height restrictions and doesn't think anyone on J is snobby and they deserve to keep their view.
Please improve comprehension, the comment was "some" snobs, not all. Not sure if 10:34 agreeing with the point or not. Seems to be saying same thing with more words.lol
J place views are not blocked by trees but by houses on G St., allowed to be 24 ft. high, above ground level. They are in many places, built no further than 8 ft. apart. As pointed out by one blogger, trees in the most restricted area don't need to be limited to 14 ft. when the homes on G are close to 30 ft. above sea level.
Most all trees in between J and G have been topped at least once, and many don't increase in height significantly. It would take about 25 years for newly planted trees to reach 25 ft., and if Shorepines, won't likely exceed 30 feet if never topped. A few taller trees in the neighborhood would neither block views or create a hazard. That is an undocumented claim that is irrelevant.
The Policy needs to go. It serves only to create anger and division among owners. Want a taller house ? Buy one. They come in many sizes. Trees that have been topped in their first few years don't grow very tall, and won't exceed about 25 ft. No limits or compliance battles are needed.
Post a Comment