This shows what can happen with a tree height covenant and enforced compliance. This canal frontage property was tree covered. Located on I Street, it it now compliant and offers the property owners on each side of the canal, an open view of each other. The clearing to the waters edge could be a violation of the shore line regulations. Will there be a complaint filed for that?
This bare lot will now provides more surface water run off to the canal as well as being opened up for the growth of invasive weeds. Did the lot owner get a tree complaint or pre- sale inspection by the Surfside Investigator? Was a County land clearing permit obtained? We are seeing more and more property owners throwing their hands up in disgust and a FOR SALE sign appearing on the property.
A few trees left at the waters edge would have provided a more attractive lot for the owners on both sides of the canal. What a shame.
Click on the pictures to enlarge.
30 comments:
This is by no means the only lot to suffer this way, or for owners to react in this way. Throughout the area there are many lots that have been mutilated in a similar fashion. Many of them have either just left stumps or worse yet, just left the cuttings. Makes the area look like a war zone, and I guess in many ways it is.
Looks Great, ready for someone to build a home now. Good job owners
Do we want to live in a natural beach setting or a city like suburb? We know what comes with suburbs. Surfsides appeal is the beach setting, over time that is going away n look like our neighbors across the water north. Sterile n ugly. Surfside is being ruined by a very small minority. The same type that is ruining our country. Small loud minorities are allowed to rule our society by the apathy of the majority. The eventual response will not be pretty.
8:56 Or maybe even better yet we can have 3 to 4 RV's there full time! Or even maybe some homeless. Now those would fit right in to the environment.
So, @ August 21, 2019 at 8:56 AM
As more and more homeowners denude their lots on the canal and the lakes in order to comply with the ill thought out covenants, the canal will suffer and the owners.
Meaning the waters will warm to the point where only the lovely green algae and Milfoil will exist. There will be no fish or organic life in canal and the waters will become uninhabitable for human activities. The mosquitos will that you for your compliance efforts.
Good Job SHOA!
8:56 - There are many areas in the country where you would be much more comfortable than the N.W. Coast. Forests are an important part of our eco-systems in the N.W., so it is a strange obsession to relish property entirely void of trees. Much of Nebraska and Kansas are flat and treeless, as is the eastern part of the Rocky Mt. states. There are some expansive deserts you would LOVE - the Alvord on the eastside of Steens Mountain is close by. Much of Arizona and New Mexico are flat and treeless, and most of central Canada is pretty featureless, with few trees, and they don't grow taller than about 15 ft. Easy to cut down !
Do we know if it is a correction statement that this happened as a result of a tree complaint It may be that the owner simply decided to clear the lot.
Does not matter what happened or why. As George said, it is an example of what is happening in Surfside. It does have a for sale sign on it. Maybe they wanted to but where they could have any kinf og trees they want. Could be they were tired of all the BS.
From 8:56 - agreed 11:07 - and thanks 10:51 for pointing out the various geographical differences found throughout the USA and Canada. I like it just fine in Surfside, and regardless of the tree height restrictions, I chose to cleared the trees on my property, I don't want the hassle of the upkeep they bring. I think the lot pictured could have the same thought or maybe (like 11:07 posted) they are getting ready to build, who knows, they may add trees and shrubbery later?
IMHO: This is another alarmist post by George to flare up and distort the tree height issue
No ones business but the owner
correct 12:29 - but someone decided to try to make an example of them?
His choice, his blog, I know!
I think the lot looks neat and tidy.
Once again you delude yourself into thinking the Tree policies are fair.
Keep lying, it will eventually turn into the truth....not!
Until proof is provided that this lot was cleared due to a tree complaint I will assume that the owner simply decided to clear the lot.
Have seen Ms. Olds taking measurements with her equipment at compactor site. Explain that!
Why don't you call her and ask about the use of tree committee equipment at the compactor site?
5:18 Just take a trip down I street and the west side of the canal. Do you suppose that all of those owners just decided to butcher their trees at the same time? Some of the owners have decided to just leave the cuttings where they fell in protest it looks like crap and there is nothing you can do about it as the HOA has avoided previous complaints by saying there is not a definition to the "neat and tidy" stipulation. Thanks to the brave ladies of the Tree Committee and the BOT for not recognizing the issue and fixing it. Back to the days when the compliance officer came to you personally if there was an issues and it was settled rather than the "behind a veil" that is used now.
7:23 Provide proof or back off of your unproven assumptions.
7:23. Read the statement, do you see the word “suppose”? Don’t use your ineptness blind you. And tell me, do you really think it isn’t true?
Anywhere there is 14 ft. limits on tree heights there are dead and tortured trees, and most of I St. is an example. There really is no point in trying to grow trees in areas with this restriction. The main problem with the Tree Policy is, that owners have no choice but to comply. This is a large lot, so it IS unusual there are no trees on it, but if there were, they would be silly looking and dying/dead.
A major argument against the Tree Policy is that it mandates constant maintenance, when trees in general do not require maintenance unless they are damaged or have health issues. Conifers don't produce a lot of debris, such as deciduous trees, so only the HOA creates mandated tree maintenance. Arborists say to only prune when absolutely necessary, and to never TOP trees.
Clearing lots is the result of the unnecessary Tree restrictions, and it is unlikely it would happen otherwise.
Just dont understand how shoa is allowed to get away with it. Doing for view is illegal. They are lucky i bought in a better area of shoa. Or I would sue them. Cant say its for safety, since varied n only in certain areas and not prevalent or standard practice anywhere on coast.
If you were forced to top your tree because of a tree complaint and as a result the tree died, take them to small claims court. The cost is minimal, and you will win your case. SHOA will have to pay for a replacement tree and the total court costs. Take a before and after picture and have an arborist inspect the damage and write a report for the cause of the tree damage. The court will also make the association pay the cost of your arborist consultation. One court case win will end this failed policy covenant.
In your dream 10 am. You forget that the only reason that the hoa would require the topping of a tree is because the owner failed to maintain the tree properly to comply with the covenants. Therefore, it is the owner's responsibility, not the hoa.
Tell that to the judge 11:29
You will be laughed out of court. Nice try
To 10:51:
Using your geographic theme, there are many areas on the peninsula you could have bought where you could have been in a forest if that's what you want.
Also, there are many properties here where people actually took care of their trees and have many, so to compare here to a desert is just inaccurate and foolish.
Well 1:30 why not compare to Cannon Beach or Manzanetta. They do not butcher the trees and the area is much more pleasing than Surfside or should I say Stumpside.
By % of area, surfside is destroying more trees than the fires in the rain forest. This is giving surfside a bad reputation. We need a committee that promotes trees and their care. 2:38 makes a good point. Those areas along the Oregon coast really look nice.
Calling a lot "neat and tidy" when it is devoid of trees or shrubs is pretty hilarious. Yet you don't understand why it was suggested that you would surely rather live in a desert ? I didn't say Surfside looks like a desert. It looks like something out of a Dr. Seuss book, with the mutant umbrella trees on I St..
Many owners are opting to remove everything in this area because the tree height limits are not practical for growing trees that want to be 30 feet tall. Very few trees grow less than 20 feet tall, and many smaller varieties are dwarf varieties or miniature ornamentals, are difficult to grow, and are not really TREES.
I live on the westside of G St., and focus on the beach. I try to ignore the rest of this ugly community.
Funny you should bring up Manzanetta 2:38. Are you aware of all the damage done by the storm back in 2016? Google it since I'm sure you won't believe me. There was a large amount of damage done by trees. I know because I have friends in that area. That is one major reason for me to keep my trees short and the reason I chose to live here. With the high wind storms we get I don't want to deal with the mess and potential house damage.
And thanks 12:08. I had a friendly wager with the wife that someone would make the foolish comparison to the fires in Brazil. Next Depot dinner is on her.
Not that it matters, but after a couple phone calls found out the property in question wasn't a tree complaint thing, the owner just did it. I'm sure that doesn't make a difference and you all will continue to post the usual B.S.
Your right 4:17 It does not matter and it makes no difference. No one said it was a complaint, but an example of what does happen. Why did it take a couple of phone calls? That might be more interesting than your B.S.
Post a Comment