These are pictures from the West side, not the other side where I live. I have time and again been harassed about my neighbors who removed their diseased trees. Reference is made to the stumps next door to my place. The removal was their choice. They were not mandated to do it.
The pictures posted here are on the slope down hill from J Place. There will now be increased run off from the denuded property. This will increase the surface water into the drainage system and into Seabreeze Lake. Most of this area gets a lot of flooding during the Winter. The County has done a lot of work in this area.
Another picture shows bank work being done and a partial retaining wall being constructed. Were there proper County permits obtained for the land clearing and excavation and retaining wall? There are no record of permits.
These properties are owned by members (a couple) who have authority to mandate and enforce compliance of covenants of their fellow members. I guess they think the rules only apply to the other members, but not themselves.
Click on each picture for a larger view.
 |
| Looking down steep hill from J Place. Gorse and Scotch Broom will love this location. |
 |
| Stump Farm |
 |
| Better hope the dug out sand in back, holds during the rains Is that wall leaning? |
48 comments:
Wow
So, you're saying that people can't develop land that they buy?
So they guy who has stumps on his property line is taking pictures of stumps on someone else's.
Yep, good title for the topic, HYPOCRITE.
1112 - if you truly know the definition of the word, you wouldn't be able to look in the mirror.
I hate to admit this but I find myself agreeing with former candidate and blog favorite Mike Riley. Like him I'm now looking forward to when some older members die off.
I appreciate the candor and purpose of your post 2:09, but my original post has been taken out of context.
If you look back at my post you will find the original context. I was frustrated that I couldn't develop my lot how I wanted. My post was saying that I won't be building a house on my lot for many years to come and by then the older people on the board now will be gone and maybe things will change by then.
I think 2:09 is talking about me. Probably the same one who makes threats of violence. Sicko
Isn’t that pictures of a board member and committee member? How much more hypocritical can SHOA get? Let’s see proof of permits, etc and board minutes stating that. If not, it’s time for this HOA to sue the board for discrimination and partiality. I’m in!
BTW: let’s not let this drop like they hounded Patrick! “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander!”
Oh I see. You're probably right. Sicko for sure.
You have ten times the guts and integrity that 2:09, anonymous, has.
Go ahead 2:09, attack me anonymously some more. Really enjoy your selfish and childish self.
Are you going to tell me to leave?
Is your name James Clancy?
Looking forward to Clancy being left at an old folks home, being spoon fed tapioca. Perfect time to build
OK, Mikey:
Forget for the moment that you're changing your story, let's focus on your present comment. You said that you were frustrated that you couldn't develop your property how you wanted, which is understandable. Well, your buddy George is doing the same now against the people above, so do you disagree with him doing so or are you a hypocrite too?
Take a hike anonymous whoever you are.
George is a good person who is trying to provide a forum for positive constructive dialogue and change.
You definitely aren't. Keep on attacking and hiding behind your anonymity.
Great work with the blog George!
I don't like pictures of my neighbors property, with derogatory comments, posted on the internet. I think your crossing a line. Some of the pictures don't belong to the board members.
521 - we don't like you shucking for a dishonest organization, but here we are.
As to crossing lines, you people went over long ago.
So in short the answer is yes, you are a hypocrite. Add that to the list of your short comings.
Keep attacking me and hiding behind anonymity coward 2:09 5:40.
Thank God that 5:21 is not my neighbor. My neighbors care about the environment and each other.5:21 and the neighbors are not nice people. Clear away the slopes and dig out the banks. To hell with anyone below and the hell with the County ordinances and surfside covenants. Neat and attractive? Hardly. Just more of the same from the elitist better than thou group. Truth is, they are the worst of the worst. Good topic. It fits them perfectly.
Canned response coming soon🤣😂
When pictures of your place shows up on this blog, the laugh will be on you!
Agree with 5:21.
If someone showed up on my property the only pictures they would get would be of the inside of their colon........
I think that the comments that take exception to George's comment/opinion bear out the truth of what George is saying. The pictures show properties that obviously need some attention, as they are in conditions of neglect. The appearance of these properties is detrimental to nearby property values, as they do not appear to be works in progress, but have remained as they are for a long time. That's a red flag to a prospective buyer.
It is interesting that RV lot sheds that have porches or overhangs have been targeted by the BOT, though the numerous "non-compliant" sheds are all nicely built, and on well-cared for RV properties. Meanwhile, some Trustees own neglected properties that have a very REAL affect on their neighbors, yet they are Teflon as far as any compliance demands are concerned.
Williams had about 15 or more dead tree stumps about 15 - 20 feet high on his undeveloped property adjacent to his house, which had been there for years - until a couple of days before the last Annual Meeting.
The fact is, some folks have no problem enforcing a double standard when given the authority. That's hypocritical folks, plain and simple. That shows a lack of conscience and fairness.
George's neighbors had a strait line of large conifer trees about a foot thick, planted as a screen to the road. They were not an appropriate type of planting, and were less than 2 feet apart. They did not create a screen to the road, became diseased and were unstable as well. There were about 12 trees cut - a big project - and it is likely the stumps will be removed so a hedge can be planted, or the area repurposed.
I suspect that 5:21 is the same person who has made threats to me and others on this blog and elsewhere. They are well known for their hostile angry demeanor. Be advised, that even anonymous comments can be traced and identified. A record is maintained of these kinds of threats. Opposing comments are welcome, but threats are not.
Sorry, I mean 9:42, but could also apply to 5:21, who is probably the same person. :
Sorry George, I'm not on the board and have never threatened anyone in my life, but I believe you have crossed a legal line by posting pictures on the internet, without permission, of other people's property.
No threat, just a fact
George was on public area, unlike bot members trespassing on private property.
10:45....There is no legal basis for your objections. He also knew the owners but did not specifically name them. Given an address, anyone can look up the title owners, so even naming the owners is not crossing a "legal line" as you call it. You don't like the conclusion that everyone draws from this, but the truth is what is uncomfortable for you.
Trustees are known to pass over the non-compliance of other Trustees pretty routinely, but no mercy was shown to Patrick. That is the point being made. The fact is, many Surfside restrictions come down to a judgement call in the field, such as a standard of "neat and tidy", or "well-maintained".
The problem encountered trying to take owners to Court over minor shed features is that the County restrictions do not forbid these features, and while the HOA may add other restrictions to County ordinances such as this, there has to be a demonstrated reason for enforcing further restrictions. The Courts have not seen roof overhangs or small porches as justifiable restrictions.
To the credit of the HOA, there have never been restrictions on home designs, beyond County requirements, and the community has a diverse individualized aspect that varies greatly in color and design. There is no rational explanation can explain why sheds should be tightly restricted in this way, and the Courts have consistently agreed.
On the other hand, properties that have large dead trees standing, are particularly unkempt, or have large unfinished projects in plain view long-term, are in violation of specific covenants of care, and may create safety hazards for neighbors or unsuspecting children.
Some standards are more forgiving than others. Compliance often is a matter of opinion, and not as clear a distinction as stockpiles of construction rubbish or garbage present. The HOA's zeal in enforcement needs to be restrained and considerate of the actual impact of any perceived violation. An attractive, well-built shed with a porch does not negatively impact the community, anymore than homes having different colors.
Wouldn’t let it bother me George, in theses days everybody thinks they are a lawyer and tries to put up a perceived threat. A bunch of know nothings that have watched too much TV while drinking too much beer!
I believe that the so called overhang or porch cover on Patrick's shed was added after the shed had been constructed. It was an ugly, tacked on thing that appeared to be a danger in the event of a wind storm. As noted on this blog, the new owner easily tore it off and threw it in aside.
5:31 Did you ever see his “shed”?? No one and I mean NO ONE would have ever seen it in their normal day. It took several Board members trespassing on his property and drone video to even see it. The property was posted, so the snoopers should have been prosecuted. It was very protected from the wind, but then you are probably one of those that feel the Shore Pines are going to impair themselves in your house when a 50knot wind comes up. Get real, you lost and rightly so with your made up justification. Hers an idea, just complain about Kirby Smith’s overuse of water.
Shed restrictions can be only because of the bias against rv lots, rest is double talk, like the tree argument about safety. What is the biig deal about electricity and water n drain in, our outside of shed. Long as follows county rules. Shoa should be about fun n where we live, not about some investment. Most of us will die here. Cant take it with you.
Well stated 3:48
It is only the same old diversion tactic to try and make the discussion about me. Thank you for bringing the discussion back to the topic. someone made the comment to not let it bother me. Be assured that it does not.
I and many others are not affected by tree covenants or sheds, but when we see the injustice to our fellow members, we have to speak out. If we don't, we could become the next victims.
Continuing To Be Fed Up
Kudos to you 3:48. Very sensibly written and making good, common sense. To 5:31: blah blah blah! Are you still harping about Patrick’s shed when the subject matter was the unsightly property of a board member and committee member! Let it go Buddy aka Big K or one of his groupies.
Thx again George for keeping this blog up and running to inform the members of STUMPSIDE’s daily transgressions.
5:31 - Your comments are b.s.. The porch was NOT a poorly constructed add-on, and your joy over the floor of it being removed and tossed in the bushes is very strange. How did this make the community better ? I suggest you drive by the property to see where it is and if his neighbors were concerned about his shed.
Pictures of the Johansen shed were on this blog. Find them and judge for yourself if the unapproved addition was tacked on or not. Also, it was ugly.
11:06 - Your definition of "ugly" as an enforcement criterion, cannot be found in the covenants. This is not a current issue, and the point you seem to continue to miss is, the community cannot use the Superior Court routinely to resolve insignificant compliance issues. No one's lives were impacted by this hidden shed, nor does it merit community concern or a $100,000 price tag to achieve a failed legal effort.
This will not be revisited by the HOA, and the mistakes made can serve as a valuable lesson - OR, we can continue to drag stupid little issues like this to Superior Court where they will fail, in part because the Court sees this stuff as petty and a waste of their time.
doesn't matter is the shed was hidden or not, it was still a violation of the covenants.
Where are the pictures of the shed?
Hey folks, the shed is gone. The HOA was proven wrong in court and internally as they took the initiative to drop the case because they knew they wereWRONG. Let’s talk about the current Board violations. DeLees and there butcher job, the current President whose property has been a blight on his neighborhood (to say nothing of his short term rental operation), and the biggest of all, the Clancy garage on I Street. Approved as a “service building” it is a garage, nothing less. Let’s have someone track down how he got it approved!
You seem to think those covenants are some kind of magic. The lawsuits to come will prove the fallacy of that belief. Outdated covenants that are kept alive by self interest, and morphed into whatever the Board wants them to be.
Rubbermaid style sheds abound in Surfside. They are legal and ugly.
Agreed about the vinyl sheds. They are also a danger in wind storms and easy to break into by humans, bears and racoons. It would be a good idea to get rid of them.
Yet, that does not change the fact that Patrick changed or remodeled his shed beyond what was approvable with an ugly and dangerous tacked on porch roof.
What is at issue here, is that the shed is still not technically compliant, but the attorneys say to drop it. Does that convey anything meaningful at all to you 10:05 ? The fact that you seem unable to grasp, is that the Courts see the County standard as THE standard, and do not recognize further restrictions Surfside has tried to put on them as valid.
What kind of nitwit are you that you don't recognize that pointless enforcement cannot be defended in Court, no matter how much of OUR money is thrown at it.
Thanks so much for the infantile name calling and derision 12:05. I'm guessing you are Steve Cox playing anonymous again.
There are legal fining provisions that would apply even if ignored by a covenant violating member like Patrick. If fines are handled correctly, the money due would be collected at the time the violating member tried to sell their lot.
Yeah, that kind of community would go over really well. Who are you to be bitching about an anonymous post ? Everyone else needs your guidance to realize the perfectly intolerable police-state, Surfside. Great suggestions !
I always find it interesting, like in this topic, how people complain about the board telling members to follow covenants. They continually say that they should be able to do on their land as they choose. Yet the same people turn around, as in this topic, and complain that people shouldn't do certain things on THEIR land even when it is allowed.
Again, using the topic header, hypocrites.
The covenants are totally controlled by the Board. No member can touch them.
We have a situation here similar to an earlier period in American history. Anybody remember the phrase 'no taxation without representation!' Let's see what they say if we stop paying. We are certainly being charged, and cannot influence the outcome.
Bottom line. This HOA sucks and should be thrown on the trash heap where it belongs. It has failed.
I agree. Dissolution appears to be the only answer. From what I've read, it is member-driven.
When do we start?
Post a Comment