This proposed covenant has obviously not gone to the attorney for a legal review, as has always been done in the past. If it was, then the association needs to find a new attorney.
Who wrote this garbage? It is clearly the work of a J Place coalition. If they are allowed to get away with this, what will be next? The color of your house or roof? And to have the audacity to say that members have to change their light fixtures? To that I reply...GO TO HELL.
The past practice of handling a few complaints, has worked, and does not need increased enforcement at the whim of a few. The members need to speak up against the proposed discriminatory covenant that targets those in the line of sight of a few J Placers. This is disgusting beyond words.
The proposed covenant:
Click on each page to enlarge:
71 comments:
At least 2/3 of the owners in Surfside are part-time residents. Since you cannot live in an RV all year 'round in Surfside, all RVers are part-time. But more than half of the homeowners are part-time as well. My comments about data on the sheds broken into is not intended to reflect badly on RV lot owners. No one can ban RV sheds.
In order to find ways to prevent break-ins or track who's doing it, we need to look at the data related to it. Generally such activity is opportunistic, and preys on the easiest marks. But knowing how many break-ins, where, tells us where we may need security cameras, how much of a problem it is, and where it merits more attention and resources.
Pressuring owners to cut back on exterior lighting, and limit coverage, is surely counter-productive for prevention of crime. The notion that lights help criminal activity is weak (to lame). More crime of this kind occurs at night, and for a specific reason.
December 3, 2019 at 12:03 PM Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
A key point towards prevention is the same here as elsewhere, know your neighbors. I guess we're lucky in my area since we all get along and look after each other. This includes full time home owners, part timers and Rv's. If one is having a guest come down they will let someone know. If we see someone on the property we call or text the owner to check if they know them.
There was a former RV trustee who made a big fuss over the requirement to have a notice in their RV when here during the off season. The one good thing about it was besides Travis being to see if an RV is suppose to be on a property it also alerts members when they are walking by. There have been times that people squat on vacant lots, specially in the winter months and this policy makes it easier to catch them.
BTW, I'm a full timer and have cameras, motion lights and still have had trespassers. Unfortunately there is no easy answer to solve the break ins.
So the new ordinance only applies to those that affect j place views again. Pathetic. So glad i live in an ignored part of shoa. Those in my neighborhood actually live in harmony. Can we secede? Lol. This is getting to be embarrassing to say i live in surfside. Dissolve, or vote by precinct.
Thank you George. On the surfside website there is one more document showing the approved and disapproved fixtures. We will not be grandfathered in by the way!
This one doesn't bother me too bad other than the limit on party lights. I also find it annoying with the 400w sodium bulb buzzing all night long for false sense of security... But 15w string of party lights? That just means you don't give a sh*t about the low lander's welfare.
Lest we see a string of party lights on that J place 3rd level balcony...
Along with "Going to hell", I can tell you where they can stick their approved and disapproved fixtures. It's a place where the sun don't shine.
This all came about from the Arch Committee, so please explain how this is due to the "J Pl coalition". While you're at it explain how that's the case when a complaint was made AGAINST a J place resident from someone living way down towards the coast and also a Trustee from the valley complained about lights coming from someone on J at a board meeting. That J place resident lost his appeal against his complaint. Where was the coalition there?
Some people want you to believe that it's only J place that makes complaints which obviously isn't true. They've become the boogeyman of the blogg.
Our house is across the street from the Veteran's Memorial Park, does the lighting covenant apply to the reader board that stays on all night? Because we would love it if they had to turn that thing off sometime in the evening. There's no reason to keep it on, no body comes to look at it in the evening, and quite frankly, we find it to be a nuisance. We complained about it a couple years ago because it had no reflector and it lit up our house and yard. They put a reflector on it, but we're still not happy, but we live with it.I don't mind the lighting covenant, especially if we can get that darn thing turned off ��
The Arch Committee did not write the covenant. It was written by J Place members. The committee just pushed it on. As for the reader board, this is an issue for the Lands and Buildings committee. They take care of association property. I suggest you send a letter to that committee concerning your issue. I am sure they will work with you for a solution. Your idea of a timer seems reasonable. These are reasonable people on that committee. We don't need a whole new set of rules when the present ones will do just fine. The failure is not the covenant, but how it is handled. We have a restrictive lighting covenant now. If there is an issue, file a complaint. 4:04 has a legitimate issue, and it should be taken care of. With the attention of the right people, it will be corrected.
Send your concern about the reader board to:
Ric Minich (committee trustee)
ram08pdx@hotmail.com
Let us know if he responds to you.
The entire Lands & Buildings Committee is the following:
Trustee - Rick Minich
Members - Tom Newman-Chair, James Clancy, Larry Raymer, Kirby Smith, John Purdin, Peg Olds
3:54 seems a bit too well informed for an anonymous. Sounds like someone speaking out of turn.
Architectural Committee
Trustees - Kurt Olds, Annette DeLeest
Members - DuWayne Mott & Vivian Wattum - Co-chair, Cindi Pellerin, Jan King, Sharon Reuling, Bob Zigler
Did anyone else notice the large barn light located in the J well field photo below?
That building has been removed
2:44 I completely agree with you on the party lights! Who is the person that complained about a string of 15 Watt edison lights that are in vogue today? You couldn't get less obtrusive with a dull flashlight. And how did that person (couldn't have been more than one grinch out there, although I can think of a number of current committee members) get the ARC to write it in to the proposed change??? Bad enough they want to come around and measure lumens. Neighbors would have to turn out all lights at night as I can see them from front door. And what is this BS about a light from "the valley". Man, some people have no life at all! They just like to harass JoAnn and the others who just want to live here peacefully. BTW good point out on the ARC members. Looks like the usual suspects. Throw the bums out on their collective ears!
By the way our lights are not Edison string lights, but decorative LED lights and we only have 6 bulbs screwed in giving 1 watt per bulb
Let the trees grow and you won't see the lights. Require every shed to have an outside light.
To 5:40.
Only someone like you would have a problem with someone being "too well informed". I guess in this day that is a problem. Much easier to just repeat untruths.
I'm informed because I actually go to board meetings and everything I said I witnessed first hand. Along with those complaints I mentioned there have been others that had nothing to do with J place residents. You actually learn something by attending. So if anyone is speaking out of turn it is you.
The Arch committee put the new lighting requirement on the agenda so of course the board had to address it. They did so by tabling it until January where they can get input from the members. I pretty sure George is mistaken here because the paper he has published was put forward to the board by the Arch Comm. representative. If it isn't the same one it sure is similar to the one I saw so I don't understand how it can be blamed on J placers.
Either way nothing has been decided yet, it's a proposal. Why not wait until January and we see how each Trustee votes before laying blame? I realize for some that's a novel idea, but in my opinion it's the correct one.
It may be a proposal but I know for a fact one board member plans to vote yes on it even before listening to the membership hearing! I think the architectural committee worked on the new covenant at the direction of the board. The January 18th meeting needs to be well attended in order for the BOT gets a complete idea of how the membership feels about this proposed covenant
The proposed covenant I published is the one posted on the "official" web site. You may learn more by reading the published documents than attending the "meetings" The proposed lighting covenant should never reach a vote. It should be tabled. It is so poorly done, it would never stand up in a court of law.
The Board has apparently approved of this policy rewrite and will be presenting the same for discussion by the members. It is only a guess as to how open to changes they may be. The McMurphy's have been getting hassled over a string of lights since July, and the current existing standards allow them all year long.
What's that all about, if no one's in a hurry ? A review meeting should be delayed until the Annual Meeting in July. That's the only time there's more than 100 members in a room. The text of this needs to be sent out to all owners, making certain everyone knows what is being promoted here. .
When is anything discussed by the members here?
I've been here since April 2018. I've attended every type of meeting. I've run for the board. I've never seen anything discussed by the members in a single room or anywhere.
Require all governing document amendments be put to a majority vote of the membership.
Also opt in to the latest WA HOA RCW.
Read WA RCW 64.90, 64.90.285.
9:54, better known as Ms. Peggy. You are a typical misinformed narcissistic egomaniac.
8:08 AM, Thank you and have a nice day. Big smile to you!
Real classy 8:08 AM. Thanks for showing us your true colors.
Mr. Kurt Olds should recuse himself from voting on the lighting covenant. His wife serves on the architectural committee and had a part in writing the new covenant. This is a clear case of conflict of interest.
The covenant with it's J Place reference, would make a conflict of interest for any J Place board member. Any J Place board member who votes on this covenant, should be removed from the board
I have never seen 100 or more members at the Annual Meeting. Must be some new form of math involved.
This is outright narcissistic favoritism. Specific to the J Place junta.
Is there anyone NOT convinced that our Association has been hijacked by special interests?
9:37 - Missed the point once again. It's an estimate that I know for a fact is not far off. Do you understand the point being made ? There is no urgent situation necessitating a quick and substantial change of the current lighting covenants, which are very few, and no doubt intentionally so. Too complicated for ya ?
The members have been betrayed by this J Place board. They have been betrayed by committees composed of J Place members, some even related to the board. This group in control now, may get away with it now, but come July, they will be held accountable for their betrayal. They have lost the trust and credibility of the members.
Will the last one out of Surfside please tune the light off?
12:57. For sure! My question is, does this proposed new covenant apply to the members who live on the east side of J place?
J Placers don't view the east side of J Place, so no.
https://www.surfsideonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/20191125112833514.pdf
The list of approved lighting doesn't leave much for looks in my option. Let's make Surfside ugly
1:03 PM my read says it includes EVERYONE in SS.
End The J Place Junta!
If I make signs of this, will people hold them with me at the July Annual Meeting?
Better yet, can we post them in our front yards with a link to this blog?
Attend the annual meeting and remove these clowns. Make motions and boo them off the stage. It is time for the members to stand up and take back their HOA. Make signs and hold them up. Elect no one from J Place.
dec 4 12:51
accountable = no
betrayed = yes
Now we're talking people. I'm up for signs, booing them off the stage.
I agree. It's time for serious action, including protesting everywhere we can.
junta ? Clowns ? Protests ? Can we just keep this grounded and focused on common sense ? It is likely many members will not want to see these new restrictions approved as final. The best chance of developing some momentum to stop these standards from being approved as now written, is to remain civil, and keep it real. It's not time for the big revolution, just an opportunity to bring some pressure to the HOA that makes it clear this is not representative of common-sense standards.
Apparently a community on Bainbridge Island has been used as a model, and Bainbridge is a very wealthy privileged area. Surfside is not. There are some that want to fashion it as something it is not, and the strange standards applying only to "the area between the ridge and the surf" tells us this IS largely driven by an elitist notion.
The modest restrictions that have worked for the community for decades obviously reflect a more realistic standard that better represents what Surfside owners want - which in part amounts to the right to make many choices ourselves, not restricted to "shining downward".
A good place to start is to delay the review, make our objections known to the Trustees and Arch Comm., and make certain that ALL owners are well aware of the changes proposed, by sending out the proposal in the mail.
Cox still thinks the Trustees follow the rules and are "keeping it real" and are reasonable.
News Flash, They Don't and They Aren't.
Attack me, ridicule me, make fun of me, and call me all the names you want.
Thank you and have a nice day.
Even George says to them, "GO TO HELL".
3:50 - You didn't hear me say that - you said it. This is a very disconnected community, and only a reasonable approach will gain any following. You can talk this rebel talk all you want - it won't get you anywhere in Surfside. Expecting to be treated fairly by the BOT isn't radical, but being disrespected and expected to do a little dance for the HOA pisses people off. These baseless restrictions deserve a response that demands the members are listened to, and standards that show it.
9:54:
Your comment is pure fiction and filled with bias. Ms. Olds is NOT on the Arch Comm. She had NO part in writing the new proposal. There is NO J place reference with this proposal.
Board members were elected to serve and vote. Doing so is no reason to remove any Trustee. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't change that.
11:04. Have you read it? It certainly does reference J place! Also Board members are to serve and vote to act for the membership, not have their minds made up already as to the way they will vote. The purpose of the hearing is to “listen”
Yes Mike, you leave me with a real deficit. Nearly every post is from you from 3:51 on, except 11:04 who is chastising you. Before that comment, Riley at 5:47,5:54,8:08,8:21,9:37,11:10,12:51,1:16,1:40,3:07,3:50,3:51,3:53,4:28,4:29,and 4:32. Clowns, junta, Ms. Peggy, and "feel sorry for me" (Cox told me to go away !)
There is no conversation, just you talking to yourself. Give it a break. There are some REAL issues here that require some member response, and that is difficult to mobilize in Surfside. All of this disrespect alternating with dissolution pronouncements is counter-productive. That should be obvious.
I have to agree with Steve C on the posts times. This Rielly guy is unstable and scary.
You can agree with Cox or not but to belittle him or worse and not use your name is chicken shit.
1104 - J Placer or just a pimp for them? You lower the collective intelligence with you blatant lies.
Blatant lies 5:14? So are you agreeing with 9:37 that Ms. Olds is on the Arch Comm and wrote the new covenant? That is one of the easiest statements to prove untrue. Why you chose to agree only shows you to be a fool. Sorry to say that but there's no way around it. The best case scenario would be that you are just being a Troll. Either way it makes you the last person to talk about lowering intelligence since obviously you don't have much.
But please continue on with your mindless insults defending a lie. Revel in your ignorance if you must.
It is understandable but disappointing that the discussion circles the drain with contempt and anger. I wonder how many owners out there actually do want this proposed ordinance? I find it repressive, compulsive, and unnecessary. I'm pretty normal. So are most of our neighbors. Let's ask around. It may not be such a divisive issue after all.
548 - keep shucking for the J Placers and defending the undefendable.
Try to put words in my mouth, then call me a liar? Keep trying, they will be shoved back down your throat. Hypocrite.
It will be divisive as long as this carefully stacked Board keeps trying to apply draconian covenants that only serve their self interests.
10:43 - What makes you think anyone wants to hear your hissy fit ? Suck it up !! You sound unstable. That's your responsibility to your neighbors and society. We all have struggles, disappointments, friends and detractors to juggle the best way we can. Each of us is responsible for ourselves, and being civil is part of it.
There is no carefully stacked J Place board. You need to either run yourself or vote for someone from another area of Surfside. Simple as that.
12:53 needs to follow the blog more, plenty of solid evidence disproves his statement. "Again"
Keep denying what we can see with our own eyes. Go ahead.
You're either not paying attention, or, more accurately, supporting your own to the detriment of your neighbors.
Unstable is supporting an Association that constantly violate it's own covenants, State Law, and State RFC's. It should be disbanded.
10:43:
Shoved down my throat? I would like to see that happen. Make sure you bring your step stool so you can reach.
Thanks for the laugh!
There are a few board members well over 6' tall. Huh.
The person's ego is bigger than average too.
Keep it up little mikey. One of these days it's going to catch up with you.
And btw, someone doesn't need to be over 6' to require you to use a step stool.
Maybe you guys can schedule a pissing contest somewhere else, as this is an inane exchange no one is impressed by or wants to witness. I thought Mike was starting his own Blog - that would be a perfect venue for a nice big something. Place to pose, pee for distance, ...
What did you think of Mike's blog George?
These are email comments and edits I sent to the Surfside office email address Friday evening at 6:55 PM.
SHOA:
I have the following comments and edits for the Proposed Lighting CC&R Amendment as described on the Surfside Homeowners Association website.
There are no requirements east of those with J Place addresses by virtue of Section 2.17.
It is vague what requirements, if any, apply from 295th Street North to 300th Place.
The protection of a dark nighttime sky and visual environment must be applied to all Surfside lots equally.
SHOA has already implemented a requirement of full CC&R compliance when a lot is sold.
Architectural Committee Status
How did the Architectural Committee vote and what was the vote result that sent it to the board?
These are my edits:
2.17.1. Prevent outdoor lighting that exceeds maximum power ratings specified in this CC&R for nighttime safety, utility, security, productivity, enjoyment, and commerce.
2.17.2. Recognize and consider the lighting needs for governmental and community law enforcement when needed for safety and security.
2.17.4. Protect a dark nighttime sky and visual environment for all Surfside lots.
2.17b.3. Power Ratings - No single fixture may exceed the following standard power ratings: 1200 Lumens, 75 Watts Incandescent Rating, 18-22 Watts CFL Rating, or 15 Watts LED (warm white light LED, not blue light LED) Rating.
2.17b.5. Add the following sentence. Exterior stairway lighting shall be provided in accordance with
local building and fire codes.
2.17b.7. String Lighting - Is allowed provided it does not exceed the requirements of Section 2.17b.3 and has a color temperature not exceeding 3,000K or is installed shielded, in any manner a minimum of 6 inches from the center of each light source in all directions, preventing vertical projection directly towards the sky.
2.17f. Outdoor Lighting Installed Prior to [Insert Effective Date] Shall Comply With the Following:
On or before [5 Years After Effective Date], all outdoor lighting shall comply with this CC&R.
Whenever there is a new use of a property or a change in use of a property, all outdoor lighting shall comply with this CC&R.
Any new lighting shall comply with this CC&R.
I request SHOA put this proposed amendment to the governing documents to a majority vote of the membership. That majority vote of the membership could be whatever we want it to be: greater than fifty percent of the entire membership, two-thirds majority of the entire membership, or two-thirds majority of a minimum 10% of the membership.
Regards,
Where is the hate in this email? I don't call anyone names or talk about movies at all.
Post a Comment