Now that we have a Compliance Inspector, there is no need for a Tree Committee.
Golly Gee, my complaint has been dismissed.
J Place Tree Committee and Board members who write tree complaints will recuse herself or himself from the enforcement process. If the complaint is "anonymous" how will we know if they recused themselves? How about a change in policy where any of the above will not be allowed to use "anonymous" when making a complaint? Seems reasonable to me. I will not appeal this. I can't afford thousands of dollars for a lawyer and would not want to see Gary Williams spend another 50,000 dollars on legal fees. My appeal will be at the ballot box and vote at the Annual Meeting in July. PS, I don't blame Laura for any of this.
Click on the letter for a larger view
58 comments:
I don't understand why this false statement gets keeping repeated. Complaints aren't "anonymous". The name of the person making the complaint is not told to the person getting it merely to avoid some over reactive yahoo confronting the member who made it. Is that what you want?
The only concern is if the complaint is valid. It shouldn't matter who makes it. Why should any member give up their rights that everyone else here has just because they VOLUNTEERED their time to serve the community, be it committee or board member. Seems to me it is hard enough to get people to volunteer here as it is, why the need to put restrictions on them?
So long as the Tree Policy and Shed Roof restrictions are priorities, enforcement will do nothing but cause conflict, as neither of these policies are needed nor enhance the appearance of Surfside.
Some owners mistakenly insist that if the HOA isn't bugging owners all of the time over trivial stuff, they're just not trying. Some insist that trimming trees constantly is "taking care" of them, though it is documented, trimming is NOT necessary unless there is ill-health evident in a branch, or trimming is necessary to the location. That is, interferes with a walkway or drive, etc..
Enforcement needs to be specific to a proven need or problem, and not a random bunch of hoops to jump through. Neither of these intensely enforced policies benefits the community at large, and never will. The attitude is more a matter of intimidation and to demonstrate authority.
Does Cox seriously believe that repeating something over and over and over will make it true?
The guy before him (you?) certainly did.
Talk to a Arborist, get educated on tree care and you'll see he is correct.
How many of the "talk to an Arborist" group have actually had one on their property? I have, years ago and had some trees removed on his recommendation. He also had a different view concerning trees in our area that goes against what the self proclaimed experts say here.
Many, if not most Tree Services are also arborists. We're not talking loggers, and being certified requires education in the field. All of the Tree Services I've hired have been arborists, so there's lots of them. You speak of one years ago, and we are supposed to assume you are accurately stating what this one arborist told you.
The Surfside office has had brochures on plant and tree care for the taking. The National Arborists Society brochure on trees stated exactly what has been repeated here - over and over -that trees should not be routinely cut back or pruned, pruned only when necessary, and NEVER topped. Go get one of these brochures and read it yourself.
Dead or failing trees need to be removed. On the other hand, some people are convincing even though they just want to make some money. Maybe you were deceived into cutting your trees down. If failing, arborists would recommend removing such trees. Your beef has no teeth.
another zzzzzzzzz by Cox
And still he makes more sense than you do.
Accuracy doesn't lend itself to your argument.
Keep at it, Steve!
The Policy continues to be enforced even more rigorously than ever before, all based on a false premise. The surf was about a hundred yards from our back porch when our Four-plex was built in '68. It was very visible at that time. Trees don't grow well in this zone, and the few that grow are very stubby. But the dunes have built about another 200 yards of sand and a ridge about 28 feet tall.
Given these facts, what possible excuse is there to enforce the Tree Policy, which is intended to protect ridgetop views ? There is no other rational basis for this mandatory tree cutting, and homes and dunes block the views at G St.
How ridiculous, that homes on the ridge that are blocks away from the surf, insist all visible trees should be victims of this stupid policy. Makes no sense, and causes great harm, emotionally, financially, and potentially legally, should an owner object. It's a disincentive to buy in Surfside.
At last I get why Cox is constantly ranting about the tree policy when he has declared over and over again that he has no trees. It is all about his jealousy over the view that the dunes are taking away from him while those on the ridge have a view. It always turns out to be a matter of self interest for those who rant on this blog. Seems like I remember that the Cox property was part of that terrible and hideous bulldozing of the dunes in the past.
Not trying to defend Cox, but you can get a permit to bulldoze your dunes, it's not hard to do and there are restrictions of course, but for Cox, I'm sure it would restore part of his view.
Idiot !! You've said this before and it's bullsh*t. No "mean-tide" owners can legally alter the dunes, or the property several hundred feet from the mean-tide point. And no, my Fourplex did not bulldoze anything. We bought the property 3 years ago, and have no problem with the dunes. You're an idiot too 12:48.
I've spoken to this before but some people only read what they want to hear. We did not buy a "view" property, and the ridge of dunes buffer the wind. Sunsets are wonderful, and we got our place for $175,000. We OWN our place, and love it just as it is moron. The Tree Policy is a useless burden on about a thousand properties, and an advantage to no one. You are such an idiot !!
Geez Steve, being a little touchy I see, go smoke a fatty on top of your dunes, this should help. and yes you can modify the dunes, i'll bet you just haven't looked into it since they were already bulldozed when you got there.
The neighboring Fourplex bulldozed the dunes about a year before we bought our property. But you are still a moron, insisting that altering the dunes just requires a permit is foolishness. The ugly trough that was gouged out of the earth has already filled in at the beach end, nearly as far as was removed.
There's no point in pushing the sand around, and nowhere to take it if you wanted to remove it. You have no concept of how much material is being deposited annually. The highest point has lifted up about 2 to 3 feet in 3 years. So only an idiot would think there is any point in spending thousands of dollars to push sand around. It's a short walk that has an awesome reward. I like it better this way in fact. But I've said it before and I see that idiots don't retain what they read very well.
Thanks Steve for your common sense comments. Your spot on, on your understanding of the tree issues. Many of us appreciate the real information you provide. You know your views are right when they start attacking the messenger, rather than rebutting the message. Keep up the good work.
Facts aren't important to these people, Steve. George is correct in their attacking the messenger.
Many of us want to hear you. Please keep posting. If you don't, the clowns win.
Dunes can be altered within the scope of this county document:
https://www.co.pacific.wa.us/dcd/images/Dune%20Brochure.pdf
As for tree height...as long as I am paying a premium in property tax for my J place property I fully expect tree height restrictions as directed in the CC&R's be enforced.
But thought the views weren't the issue, but safety? Insert foot in mouth?
Give me a break George, attacking the messenger? Really? Look above where someone made a comment about their experience with an arborists. He/she wasn't even responding to anything Cox said but since it didn't agree with his statements he came on here and called them a liar and a possible rube who was deceived. Then look at his comments here and on other topics where he resorts to childish name calling.
Anyone who wants to make a comment on here is forced to believe and agree with anything he says. If not the attacks and name calling will follow, as I'm sure I will experience shortly. Is it any wonder why there aren't many people don't bother to voice a different opinion on here anymore?
If that opinion supports the unfair operation of this association, consider this - people are fed up.
No communication, drum head board meetings, and decisions made that only favor a small minority of the association. No non-profit can run like this legally. The first member to seriously challenge them will make a lot of money - ours.
and to add 6:24, if you call Cox a name George will swoop down and delete the post. reminds me of his beloved Blagg, BTW where has she been lately, we haven't been subjected to that rant in a while?
We're subjected to yours. That's enough banging on the host and taking shots at Deb.
Consider the fact you add nothing to this blog, and be gone, troll!
banging on Blagg!?
6:24.... You are incapable of dealing with facts, and consider them "opinions". I didn't call anyone a liar, but now YOU are one. I called you and your buddy idiots because you pretend to know things but can't substantiate your statements. Your only purpose is to try to take me down, but can't do so in a civil manner, or based on sound information.
Everything you stated about me is false. Will you accept that and give up on your crusade ? Obviously not. Everyone you do not agree with is in your book, BAAAAAD. Not to mention unfair. This is a discussion site, and you should recognize that, as well as accept that counter comments are not "attacks", but differing opinions. You are either on the attack or whimpering about mistreatment. Buck-up. Got an opinion ? Provide some facts to substantiate it.
Anonymous said...
But thought the views weren't the issue, but safety? Insert foot in mouth?
May 1, 2019 at 5:44 PM
You would have to ask the county why they charge a premium tax for property on the ridge...
5:37....I agree that taxes on the ridge do not hinge upon tree height restrictions, nor is there any covenant that promises ANY restrictions are permanent. There IS documentation allowing covenant change, which includes getting rid of tree restrictions, should that be decided upon. Unless a huge tree suddenly pops-up in front of your window, you cannot claim that trees a block to 3 blocks away interfere with your view. That is baloney.
By the way, I would suggest that anyone who thinks they can modify the dunes, hire the services of a good attorney, as the restrictions are numerous, and require very accurate measurements in feet above sea level as well as mean-tide. No commercial development - building - can be within 500 feet of mean-tide line (an elaborate calculation in itself).
Dunes are not to be reduced in height below 24 feet above sea level, and otherwise not to have any vegetation removed. The property must have accurate surveys available, and a $440 permit obtained, under SOME circumstances, can be altered slightly. Best be very motivated, unconcerned about cost, and fully understand the myriad conditions on ANY shore alterations.
The height limitation is to provide protection against "storm surges, Tsunamis, etc.". The final analysis is, in general, there IS NO permit that allows any significant alteration of the dunes, except in some very specific circumstances.
well, I am just wondering How Laura gets a pass. I thought she would have been gone by now. Of course, if you want anything from the office, you have to swish by this woman with a genuflect. Get real. Laura, please get on with your life and leave us alone.
oh..careful 641, your treading on one of Georges darlings, how else do you think he gets his access to info and data..when she is gone, intel in gone
641 here: don't be so negative. is this the devil you know vs. the devil you don't know? George is doing what is necessary to get data. Hopefully, if this person who said she was leaving actually hits the road, we can at least start over. The new guy can get his own person and the influence of this ignoramus with a little power will have moved on to her next victim.
I thought the office manager quit, why is she still here to get her tenor she must have close to ten years now.
The word is tenure and most plans (if we have one) don't require ten years.
That's because there's mostly general agreement.
Our boards operating in a highly questionable fashion, and needs to be called out. That's what's happening. If you support them, you support illegal and immoral activities.
There are plenty of people voicing their opinions. The opinions just are not yours.
Steve Cox said...
....Unless a huge tree suddenly pops-up in front of your window, you cannot claim that trees a block to 3 blocks away interfere with your view. That is baloney.
Did you just call me a liar? I highly suggest you tread carefully...
Sorry, that intimidation crap doesn't work here. Troll on.
Sorry, that intimidation crap doesn't work here. Troll on.
May 3, 2019 at 8:57 AM
Are you speaking to the Cox?
Hey George do you know if a petition was started to repeal the tree covenant and had enough signatures could you force the board to put it to a vote of the membership.
Not even...
I am most definitely not speaking of Mr. Cox, but those trolling him and the rest of us that support change.
what all 2 of you?
More than that, which should scare you.
Give us your address so we can see the view you are being deprived of. Prove that trees are blocking your view. The Tree Comm. does not make ANY determination of views, they just measure trees on the property you complain about, and if over the limit in that micro-unit, they instruct the Business Office to send that owner a compliance demand letter. Your righteousness shows no conscience about the harm this policy does at a rate of about 25 households a month.
We can see that I told you you're full of baloney. I didn't say you're a liar. Are you ? Prove that your view is obstructed. That is why this policy was established, and we all know that's what it's about. As I have stated numerous times, the policy no longer has anything to do with views, but serves only to preserve a phony class structure. We should get rid of this policy and all of the ridiculous micro-plots and varied tree heights.
Instead, owners could appeal to the compliance officer relative to their tree concern, and IF there is a valid case of obvious obstruction of views that would otherwise be seen, proceed from there. How that would play out from that point could involve the two members meeting to work out a solution, or a mediation of some kind. There are many other ways to address individual owner's concerns, and the current policy is completely inappropriate and harmful to the community's well-being.
I'd like to add that much of J Place is simply not high enough above sea level to be designated a "view property". The highest points are only about 40 feet above Sea Level, and 24 foot tall houses on G street may be several feet higher than that, depending on the property.
The covenants do not guarantee views for a single property in Surfside, and the reason is, it cannot be legally defended with the State not recognizing this as a valid reason to demand destruction of someone else's private property - their trees.
OK, you want to talk about facts and evidence, here goes.
You say that most of J isn't high enough to be a view property. What do you consider a view is? People want a view of the ocean and horizon. So are you saying that most of J is not high enough to see the ocean? If so then that is a false statement. To say that there are no trees that get high enough to block that, even blocks away is also false.
Now to your request for evidence. Since most of the people who live here follow the covenants there may not be many examples. But in this case I can provide you easy proof of what could happen if the covenants were removed. Go to the northern part of J and look further north to the area that is not part of the HOA and is covenant free. There are many examples of trees that not only block out the ocean, they also block the horizon as well.
Noticed how I made this comment without any name calling or caustic behavior towards you? Since as always you will respond, can you do the same?
WTF? Not a view property? If you can sit in your living room and look out of your window and watch boats and whales go by on the ocean, most people would say that's a view. To say otherwise you're just being a troll or something else.
The height of J Place varies greatly, so to presume all properties would have a view is unfounded to begin with.
One offers as an example, an area that is not Surfside, and the other brags about the view. What I am talking about is, your viewpoint on the ridge has to be higher than 30 feet above sea level to see over houses and dunes on G St. I don't think I've seen a spot where the distant ocean and horizon are not visible from J Pl.
On the other hand, there is no covenant that protects J Place views. Bear in mind that none of the trees that have been topped will grow much taller than they already are. Topping stunts the vertical growth, and in this case, the trees will only grow to about 30 feet tall if never topped. This is a species with modest height to begin with, and the soil is very infertile.
If the policy were changed today, very little would change in the next 10 years in terms of views affected by tree heights. This policy is based on a fallacy at this point, and pretends there is covenant protection, which is false.
Steve Cox said...
Give us your address so we can see the view you are being deprived of. Prove that trees are blocking your view.
My issue is with you spewing rhetoric that is not true. Trees continue to grow vertically (and not die) after trimming, many properties (not just J Place) in SHOA have views of the ocean (that can be blocked by trees), and the dunes can be modified.
I am neither for or against the height restrictions as set forth in the CC&R's. If the members wish to change the restrictions there is a method to accomplish it, and, I will comply with them just like I so stated when I purchased my property in the association.
You are poorly informed, and I have explained this already. The Dunes cannot be modified. They are to remain untouched, being in the "Buffer Zone" which is 200 feet from the Winter grassline. If taller than 24 feet, a permit can be applied for at a cost of $440, to lower them to 24 feet.
You have a problem with insisting on mis-stating what other bloggers say. I did not say that trees do not grow vertically after being topped. I suggest you go look at the plot of trees owned by the Mini-mart owner that were ALL topped 3 years ago. Then tell me that topping doesn't kill trees. Drive down I St. and you will see that most of the trees are sickly, and most have been cut down.
My comments were written, so not "spewed" as you like to say. Or you speak of "rants", which express great anger. There's no great anger, as what would be the point ? Exasperation would be the term really. Enforcing this policy makes no rational sense, yet the Board is incapable of eliminating it. Instead, they put this ridiculous Shed Eaves restriction in place, which makes even less sense, and is obviously just a BOT power trip.
HOAs are famous for this kind of nonsense. Creating restrictions that do not address a problem or need, but can be forced down member's throats through enforcement. Such "rules" serve only to create anger and conflict in the victims of pointless enforcement. They put an unnecessary burden on owners, demanding conformity for conformity's sake.
There are no trees that grow no more than 14 feet tall that will grow in our soil, so the rules force owners to do what arborists tell owners to NEVER do - top their trees over and over again. That is just ignorance on parade.
Steve Cox said...
You have a problem with insisting on mis-stating what other bloggers say. I did not say that trees do not grow vertically after being topped. I suggest you go look at the plot of trees owned by the Mini-mart owner that were ALL topped 3 years ago. Then tell me that topping doesn't kill trees. Drive down I St. and you will see that most of the trees are sickly, and most have been cut down.
Prime examples of owners who neglected their trees far too long and then over-stressed them when they were cited by the association.
HOAs are famous for this kind of nonsense. Creating restrictions that do not address a problem or need, but can be forced down member's throats through enforcement. Such "rules" serve only to create anger and conflict in the victims of pointless enforcement. They put an unnecessary burden on owners, demanding conformity for conformity's sake.
Who decides what the restrictions are for the HOA? The members, that's who. The BOT did not create the restrictions just to piss everybody off. The members requested these restrictions. Restrictions are necessary and the main purpose of HOA's. If you are a property owner and member then you agreed to the restrictions before purchasing.
There are no trees that grow no more than 14 feet tall that will grow in our soil, so the rules force owners to do what arborists tell owners to NEVER do - top their trees over and over again. That is just ignorance on parade.
Ok, that is the dumbest thing you have posted and is the end of our banter on the subject.
To the chair of the tree committee. please adhere the speed limit when traveling on G street. It is 25mph not 26 or 27 and above. You knew that when you moved here, it hasn't changed, so obey the laws.
LOCK HER UP
That's ok, your banter game is weak anyway.
So your an arborist now, eh? You can exclusively determine how trees that were planted long before you got here were treated.
Who decides the HOA covenants? An entrenched minority, supporting their special interests to the exclusion of the rest. They continue this incestuous relationship by handpicking candidates, and driving out those with different ideas.
End of banter, troll.
May 5th at 8:00 PM so now you have your own speed gun? You need a hobby.
One foolishness deserves another. Karma.
To 8:35. You are some piece of work and quite dishonest in your comments.
How the heck can you say I'm bragging about the view. YOU'RE the one that came on here making the statements that J pl houses are not view properties and I questioned your logic with my response. Step into the houses on J and go look out of their west side windows, how can you continue to make statements saying otherwise.
10:10 examples gives ample evidence towards your request for where trees do get high enough to block views, you just choose to ignore that fact. Then you can't even keep your own statements in line. In one comment you state that the trees will only get to about 30 ft if not topped then later make the statement about no trees grow more than 14 ft in our soil.
I agree with 10:06. It's useless to continue since you always have to be right and will not listen to others even when they provide proof.
Again, views cannot be legally protected. Move on.
Sorry 4:06, there's a house in Clyde Hill that would disagree with you. Since you're wrong, time for you to move on.
Unlike our bot, i go by state law.
Post a Comment