Are these people nuts?
They just can not seem to get it. We are a beach community, nothing more and nothing less. We are what we are, and if you think it should be otherwise, your living in the wrong place. We have some busy bodies that have nothing better to do than interfere in the peaceful life of the members.
No one likes a glaring light, but to go to the extremes proposed is over the top. We can deal with the few examples of extreme light violations with the present covenant. It has been working. The new proposal will make most of us members, violators of the lighting covenant. When that happens, we will see the same group harassing the members as the Tree Committee does.
The acceptable and unacceptable lights below, are from the association. Safety and security is the number one consideration in lighting. We have many senior citizens who need more lighting than others, for their safety when going outside, especially during the Winter. With all our part time homes and storage sheds, security lighting provides security from break-ins.
As I said before, If you think you can tell me what lights are acceptable and which are not..."GO TO HELL"
Click on the picture below to enlarge:
34 comments:
Wow, what nice choices we have?
I'm looking forward to spending several hundred dollars to replace the fixtures that have been on my house for 15 yrs, without complain I may add. I'll make sure to be checking out our Board's properties to make sure they are in compliance.
Hell is too nice of place for these wackos!
Just noticed another proposed change in the lighting covenant which changes everything if adopted by the board
Currently 2.17c addresses when the lights have to be brought into conformance.
2.17 c. Existing sources of lighting which do not comply with the provisions of this section 2.17 must be brought into conformance with the Surfside covenants Amended 8-18-18 doc 9 provisions of this section upon the earlier to occur of substantial repair,modification or reconstruction of that lighting or sale of the property
The new proposed covenant simply says, existing lighting sources which do not comply with section 2.17 MUST BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE UPON VALIDATION OF NON-COMPLIANCE OR SALE OF PROPERTY
So folks this this goes further than the national electrical code which states as the current covenant does concerning substantial repair, modification or reconstruction of said property. The changes will have to be made upon someone going around checking our outdoor lights! I can see at least two or three compliance officers needing to be hired and working at night when the lights are visible. Talk about overkill!
So enforcement will use these cartoons as a guideline ? It really isn't this complicated to determine if a fixture creates undo glare - it hurts your eyes. What is not adequately considered is in all cases, how much wattage for the specific use. Many of the fixtures in the cartoon of "BAD" lights will vary greatly in wattage and most have heavily frosted globes or valances.
Notice that some of the acceptable fixtures in the cartoon are not something you've ever seen before. Owners have a right to a full latitude of fixtures, providing they do not bother neighbors or hurt the eyes. This is all more subjective in each individual instance, and there is no excuse for telling owners what fixtures they can use, when very few versions cannot be made acceptable by lowering the wattage.
Why is there no wattage limit on security lights ? Why allow garden and pathway lights of low wattage, but disallow low watt lights on a "string" ? Makes no sense, and there is no real consistency.
We need to know exactly how many lighting complaints have been submitted annually the last 3 to 5 years, and how many were considered valid complaints. It's interesting to observe that the string of LED lights JoAnne has been hassled about since July is compliant to the long existing (and still valid) lighting covenant. We can see quite clearly that someone on the BOT/Arch Comm. has decided the community must follow Her preferences from now on. There is no validity to Her claim. Or His claim. Who is it Board of Trustees ?
Can anyone say "class action lawsuit"?
Most acceptable dont look like anything but marker lights in apt complexes.
Doesn't covenant changes need to go before the homeowners and then the homeowner vote as to whether or not to put the covenant into place?
No the board has control of adopting changes in the covenants. All they must do is notify the members in writing of the proposed change and have a hearing 30 days later. The notice wii be sent in December with our notice for dues and assessment payment and the hearing wi be January 18, 2020. 9am Surfside office along with the regular board meeting!
I have a question. If the architectural committee worked on and approved the proposed new covenant before sending it to the BOT, why is it not in the monthly minutes? Was there no discussion? Other committee minutes are more informative
3:58, I have a question.
If they were to provide the numbers of complaints filed as you requested and it turns out that they are a significant amount and valid, would you then be for it?
I doubt it.
I think it is a good idea to promote a dark sky policy. There is far too much light pollution in Surfside as well as the rest of the developed world. The policy should be implemented slowly concentrating on Surfside owned properties first. Enforcement should target new construction and remodels. Valid complaints need to be addressed. If a neighbors outside light illuminates into your home, that would be a valid complaint. The goal should be to first, prevent new unshielded lights from being installed and second, encourage voluntary compliance when replacing existing unshielded lights. Draconian insistence on immediate compliance or intolerant resistance to beneficial change will only divide the community farther apart.
Thanks 11:12
Finally, some common sense. This is exactly why this blog was created. I hope your comment will spark some reason among those who make the decisions.
9:39 - We know of only one current compliance conflict on lighting, and those owners are NOT out of compliance. That should tell you something about how justified this micro-management plan is. Yes, I think there needs to be clear evidence that the current covenants are not adequate, and seeing valid data would help clarify that for everyone, not just me.
You don't know me so would have no idea if my expectations are reasonable or not. No one has provided evidence that there is great conflict over lighting in Surfside, and it certainly isn't an urgent matter in December when decorative lighting is widespread.
Well 1:32, that's the difference between you and I.
I assume the "only one" you mentioned is the current hot button one of JoAnne. That doesn't change the fact that there have been others. I know of more because I attend board meetings regularly and have been present for other appeals of lighting complaints. The last couple prior to hers involved a complaint from someone towards the coast had made against a J place resident. Others included between neighbors on H and some on I. This was all within the last year or year and a half. These are only the cases that had appeals. It's not a unrealistic to think that there are others that were filed where there were no appeals made.
Add to this hearing from an Arch Comm member making a statement that there are more complaints than people realize and that was why they decided to go forth with the proposal. Now I could be cynical and say they are lying but I tend to take peoples words as truth and besides that why would he lie? Granted, I didn't ask him to provide proof.
Lastly, your statement that the owners are not out of compliance is only YOUR opinion.
There might be a very interesting answer as to why, if so, there seems to have been an increase this past year in lighting complaints. We know for a fact ours did not come from neighbors. I think the members deserve an honest answer on this!
Unfortunately, this weird lighting rule will be pushed through and forced upon us. We are going to have to learn to live with it. If this is the case, the BOT needs to do everything they can to assist those members affected.
In my opinion, The light fixture that will be replaced the most is the common unshielded floodlight. It would be nice if the BOT were to do a bulk order or purchase of Shielded Properly aimed PAR/Floodlights that the members could buy at a discount.
Also, best buy twice the amount you need, as the ocean air will rot the shields very quickly.
The question remains to be...Why? Every covenant needs an explanation as to why it exists or why it needs to be changed. A good example is the tree height covenant. Why? The HOA should disclose the exact number and nature of the complaints. This should include those that are not valid. How can we know if there is a problem if we don't know. We need more than someones word.
2:12....The annual breakdown of complaints has consistently shown that a huge number are filed over trees, and very few other matters come up. Create a complex and poorly designed policy, and we will see this become a serious issue.
If you haven't figured it out yet, some people enjoy creating obscure rules and restrictions, either to satisfy their own sense of how things should be, or just doing it because they have the authority to do so. What sense does regulating shed roof eaves make ? A rational person can see there is no rational reason.
It is very common for HOA Boards to set ridiculous standards that become major bones of contention and lawsuits. These rules are absurdly convoluted and do not address a serious problem.
I see alot of comments by people that are either part of the problem, or ignorant of past bot behavior. Short of a lawsuit, we have no way of changing anything.
Perhaps someone can enlighten me on covenant changes. According to “the rules” we are supposed to have 30 days notice and a hearing before the Board adopts/rejects the change. When did this occur for shed overhang change?
I don't believe there is a timeline for the BOT to schedule a member review, just because they have approved the proposal. The 30 day timeline likely refers to a review by members prior to it becoming a final covenant change that enforcement can proceed on. I'll check the bylaws for procedure, but really, the holidays are here and this is not urgent.
Review should be delayed until the Annual Meeting early July. But if you think about it, why aren't we sending out a ballot with the proposed rewrite ? Of course the proper way to do that is to have a statement supporting the 2 points of view. But simple enough, it just requires that the BOT acknowledge that owners should have a say. Those who ignore the ballot would have to live with the results.
You do know 9:09 that it's not just a HOA that puts limits on eaves right? Most cities have them, including L.B. Those ridiculous standards you mention came about here after a member constructed a ridiculous shed that he didn't get approved by the Arch Committee. In fact it wasn't even called a shed on his listing when put up for sale. It is because of people like that you end up with having to create rules.
Unfortunate, but necessary.
So 6:45 just because one person does something (that some Board members ) or one person doesn’t like someone’s lights, the other 2199 lots get penalized? There are many more folks that don’ t like the tree limits, how about removing them!
6:45....Surfside is a very different community than Long Beach. Their standards must address the many businesses and commercial properties. In Surfside the restrictions are on SHEDS, many not visible from the street. Enforcement should have given the owner a stern warning and allowed a minor variance.
That it led to a covenant change that cannot be justified in Small Claims Court is just perpetuating a trivial issue over a nearly hidden shed on a dead-end undeveloped street, into a useless roadblock to owner autonomy on their own property.
645 - you forgot the part where the owner was so mercilessly trashed by the Board and their lackeys that he moved away.
Bet your still trying to blame Obama as well!
Also forgot the thousands of dollars wasted by the BOT trying to right their wrong.
Note that the “upward oriented landscape floodlight” is on the no-no list. This is the type of light that is used by many to conform to flag etiquette, keeping a light on the American Flag if it is flown at night.
Good point. That's why it is better to limit restrictions and let each "issue" be determined by the circumstances. This is an example where the so-called "complaint" system is more practical. If someone's light or lights is bothering a neighbor, neighbors should negotiate a solution. In most cases, redirecting directional lights, and/or reducing the wattage easily remedies the situation.
I see this all as laziness on the part of enforcement, and some in the HOA wanting to hire 2 compliance officers, and make closing inspections mandatory at a fee of $200." Law and order"coming your way. The more unnecessary rules the more money spent on enforcement and legal fees. This is some bullsh*t.
For an answer to your comments, look at the BOT meeting minutes from 08-27-2019. They voted to change from complaint driven enforcement of the covenants to compliance driven. Personally I think neighbors can in most cases work things out. There’s always a few who can’t, but why punish and make it such a burden on the rest of us. As I’ve said many times were positive it was not our neighbors who complained about our lights!
Conform to Flag etiquette, give me a break.
People use this as an excuse on a residence for the sole reason because they are too damn lazy to go out every night to lower it at sunset and then raise it again at sunrise. The spirit of the lighting after taps is only for memorial/cemetery situations or other special circumstances. NOT on a private residence.
Well Joanne, I seem to remember one of your points at your appeal was that there were other people who have lighting issues but not cited. People have said the same on here in the past about how unfair the complaint system is. By having all people conform to the covenants it will do away with this.
BTW, just want to point something out here. You say that neighbors can work it out. Even if it isn't your next door neighbors as you say, apparently some neighbor did file a complaint against you some time ago. Yet it has taking you awhile to fix the issue and you are still complaining about it so apparently again it seems neighbors alone can't work it out.
Neighbor? I doubt it, certain person with little black book wanting to make a point more like it.
Anonymous 3:33. BTW. It is not taking us awhile to correct the problem! We did corrective measures, appealed to the board in person September 21 and the board upheld the complaint. Since then we’ve been waiting on what exactly needs to be done to bring us into compliance via written notice per 6.8c5. “ the determination is communicated IN WRITING to those parties involved in the appeal”
We realize there have been many changes in the staffing and some effort was put out to inform us, but that is on hold. I still stand by my feelings of basic human decency of neighbors working things out. If they cannot then go to a complaint being filed, but someone just driving around neighborhoods making decisions about who is not in compliance is only asking for more staff to do this task and mad members!
We’re still complaining because this is still an open issue not because of our actions, but the board’s non-response to our appeal other than the vote to uphold said complaint
6:45, Patrick sued and won over his eaves! They are legal to have. Again, SHOA wasted money trying to prove a point
2 compliance people? Seriously? The entire PACIFIC COUNTY HAS 1 officer for the entire county! Why oh why does Surfside did 1? What is there 2500 property owners.
WASTE OF MONEY FOLKS.
LETS GET RID OF CLANCY
Post a Comment