This is a forum to share and discuss information and issues about our homeowners association.
The blog host is not responsible for the content of comments.
As with all blogs, you have to use your own judgement as to the accuracy of the postings and comments.
Thursday, February 20, 2020
Kill Tree Committee
Feb. 7, 2020 minutes...
CLICK ON THE REPORT ONCE OR TWICE FOR A LARGER READ.
We have to question why the actions of this committee are so consistently opposed yet there is never any indication that the HOA Board cares. Statements from the committee are consistently contradictory to facts as well. The committee has claimed that approval of all owners was established before Arbor Care began cutting, yet owners have stated their property was trespassed upon, when no approval had been granted.
It has been stated in committee minutes that all CARL requirements were being observed, yet a member has filed a complaint with the County stating the opposite. Pictures published here showed naked shoreline where work had been done. An entire lot was mistakenly clear-cut without the owner's permission or knowledge. And the minutes claim that Surfside has a waiver to vary from the CARL requirements.
There is always this attitude of entitlement and disregard for what is good for the entire community. This policy is bad news, and only minor efforts are made to give the appearance that the rights of owners with trees are acknowledged. Migratory birds make occasional stops on Surfside waterways, and they benefit from the riparian zone, and some cover provided if they come ashore.
The peninsula and its' surroundings play an important part in the cycles of non-human life, so some compromise on the part of humans is warranted. The notion that undeveloped land needs to be made nice and neat ignores the fact that nature is messy, and there is beauty and purpose to it being left in a more natural state. This committee is an on-going disaster for community, unwilling to make any compromises. The chair has stated she would like all of the shorepines cut down. We're getting there. Most are ugly and dieing.
You are right on Steve, and everything you have stated is the truth. I was told that at a recent meeting with County officials, they stated concern and alarm at the clear cutting of trees on J Place. This will cause flooding problems to the residents below. They also agreed that Surfside needs a "land use" program.
On nature being messy, I want to point out that Deer Lake looks like a mud hole right now. That is due to a mating pair of geese who are digging up the bottom looking for food. This happens every Spring, usually with ducks, but will clear up later. Be careful when you drive by Deer Lake, because the pair are often on the edge of the street. The male is always standing guard. This is just one of the things that make our community special.
I was at Veterans Park the other sunny day, and noticed the neighbors to the South had butchered the pine trees there. It made me sad to see that. I had a nice visit with some locals who were on the bridge. I enjoyed relating the history of the park. They said they loved the bench and enjoyed sitting there and fishing with their grand kids. I related to them the story behind the donated park bench.
As we were visiting, several groups of people walked by as well as a couple sitting at the picnic table. Friendly nice members enjoying a beautiful Spring day. Ian't that what we are supposed to be about? I think so.
In a previous post: Welcome to Surfside, it’s just not right, Michael S. said:
"In a sense this is true but only because we have height limitations. If we didn't and trees were left to grow without limits the view of the ocean and horizon would be lost. That's just a fact. Over the years that I have walked down J I see some areas where half the ocean view to the horizon is lost. A friend of mine who lives on I pl use to see the horizon but can't now. So to continue to say that views wouldn't be lost if the covenants are gone is false."
In a sense Michael what you are saying is true, but only if we completely eliminated height restrictions. If we adopted the plan Patrick Johansen suggested years ago, all this fighting would have ended. His plan was to use a sighting tool to look from four feet above J Place to 24 feet above G or F Street and no trees would be allowed to grow above that height. This protects the views of those on J Place and eliminates unnecessary tree cutting. Everyone wins.
Michael, you are talking like a reasonable person so far in this conversation, thanks for that. Do you feel the plan Johansen suggested could be a reasonable solution that would eliminate much of the anger between the people of J Place and the rest of the community?
I find it interesting in the minutes that complaints are still being filed and yet most members you talk to indicate they feel there is too much damage being done with the cutting of trees. So what members are still having a problem with tree heights? I think we are going to have a problem with some of those scalped lots in the future! Cutting down so many trees is criminal in my opinion! In a day and age when we are so environmentally aware, surfside is in the dark ages!
No one has demonstrated that Patrick's idea would work. It sounds logical in a way, but depends on an invisible line in the sky. It also depends on some other sketchy factors such as sighting a spot on westside G St. that is 24 ft. high. from J Pl. nearly a quarter mile away. Using a transom which has a centering target and magnifying lens, this could be done, but not with a 4 ft. stick with an attachment. A 24 ft tree at that distance is less than a half inch tall (just a guess).
A major problem with the Tree Policy is that it has no written criteria to indicate that anyone in Surfside is guaranteed a view. Yet everyone KNOWS it's about the view. It is no small factor that the amount of sand being deposited on the beaches is moving the surf's edge a number of feet west each year, and pushing the dunes higher.
But the biggest obstacle is really, that there needs to be a clear definition of WHAT constitutes this "VIEW" ? If you have a house on a ridgetop, you have views. It is absurd to try and define a guaranteed view, or define what exactly constitutes a "view property". No one has been willing to try and make these definitions and owners aren't willing to allow a compliance officer into their homes to determine by ANY criteria, if an owner's view is obstructed.
Were there no tree restrictions in the covenants, an owner has a legitimate right to not have a neighboring tree blocking most of a large window. So what we really have is not based on valid criteria. It's just a random plotting of regions tagged with tree height restrictions, and no one is willing to submit to standard compliance criteria, which determines whether or not someone's view is significantly limited.
A house on J Pl. can't possibly have significant interference by a 26 ft tree on G st. The tree is about a half inch high from that distance, and the 2 ft. it is over the limit of 24 ft. is less than a sixteenth of an inch. Most people's view windows are 4 to 6 ft tall. What's 72 inches divided by a 1/16 ?
Get rid of the policy, start a program of replanting, establishing some criteria such as 30 ft limits, and limited density. Clarify limits of view driven compliance, requiring visual verification.
The J Place coalition has no interest in a compromise. You can come up with all kinds of ways to measure trees for a view, but why would the coalition agree with that. The present covenant is working just fine for them now. They have shown no interest in any change. Until you get a change in the Board, you will get no support on any change to the existing tree covenant.
Learn from the past folks. We saw Patrick and others try to be reasonable and work for a compromise. His committee was shot down before it could even start.
You first need to elect a Board that will represent all members. You need to vote in a bylaw change that requires member approval of any covenant change. Compromise with how to measure trees has not worked, and will not work, no matter how reasonable you may think it is. Look at the record. Look at how those in control vote and what they push for or against.
Looks to me like your putting Cox down. What's the difference.? Steve is not really my buddy, but I consider him a friend. That does not mean that we agree on everything or even what changes need to be done.
What I appreciate most, is that he has made the effort and taken the time to be informed on the issues. When he is attacked, he does respond in like. He is a good writer and expresses himself clearly. He is willing to get on here and identify himself, not like others, who do not use their real name, such as you.
When someone gets on here and attacks me with statements that I am not telling the truth, that is a personal attack and they will no longer be welcome, such as Michael S. I welcome a discussion on the issues and expect and encourage opposing views. He is right that "some people shouldn't even be on a blog". I think I eliminated some by requiring a name. That has not worked out perfectly, but is an improvement over what it was.
Both of these remarks sound like Mike Riley. I have said that anyone who wants to see a motion or 2 put on the ballot should avoid sounding like a rebel, or bombarding the members with proposals to change numerous policies. The BOT sets policy in general, but has resisted instating required owner approval of covenant changes. It is likely that a proposal to require that kind of approval would pass as a measure, if promoted by reasonable people, avoiding radical lingo.
The voting members and Annual Meeting attendees are not of a radical bent, but virtually ALL HOAs require member approval for covenant change. The time has come to make it so, but who promotes it and how will determine whether this can be approved, as it should be. I am very practically minded, and am not a radical. This would be a positive step for Surfside if handled properly.
Mike doesn't like this idea as a stand alone measure, and sought to get 9 measures on the docket last year. He dropped the ball mid-stream, as the BOT had tabled rather than approved his measures. So he is mad at me. Yeah, that makes sense (?).
1:54 - I have stated that anyone whose feelings are easily hurt by others simply disagreeing, should avoid the blog. You know what I said, but you would rather misrepresent what I said to get your jollies. I don't have much patience with people like you who target anyone who disagrees as an enemy.
"No one has demonstrated that Patrick's idea would work. It sounds logical in a way, but depends on an invisible line in the sky. It also depends on some other sketchy factors such as sighting a spot on westside G St. that is 24 ft. high. from J Pl. nearly a quarter mile away. Using a transom which has a centering target and magnifying lens, this could be done, but not with a 4 ft. stick with an attachment. A 24 ft tree at that distance is less than a half inch tall (just a guess)."
So try it out. If we need a better tool, we need a better tool.
Cora.... There isn't anything preventing someone trying/proving that this would be doable and practical. But there really is no reason to use a stick with a broom handle hinged to it, rather than a transom. And Sighting a line doesn't give any information other than if an object is visible above the sighted line.
To begin with, trees 3 blocks away shouldn't even be a part of the conversation. But the only way to change this policy is for the BOT to have the will to do so. That is far from the case, and the Board always has a healthy number of J Place owners seated as Trustees, opposed to revising the policy or surveying opinion in the community on this contentious issue.
You obviously don't know me or anything about me. I have no current plans to run for the Board, nor am I organizing any kind of uprising. Good luck with living inside your own head. I have no idea where you came up with these misconceptions.
It’s going to be a problem getting anyone to run for the board, but hopefully some will come forward this year. Agree with George we need representation from all areas of surfside. First on the agenda should be the members voting to change that covenants have to be changed by a vote of the membership
15 comments:
We have to question why the actions of this committee are so consistently opposed yet there is never any indication that the HOA Board cares. Statements from the committee are consistently contradictory to facts as well. The committee has claimed that approval of all owners was established before Arbor Care began cutting, yet owners have stated their property was trespassed upon, when no approval had been granted.
It has been stated in committee minutes that all CARL requirements were being observed, yet a member has filed a complaint with the County stating the opposite. Pictures published here showed naked shoreline where work had been done. An entire lot was mistakenly clear-cut without the owner's permission or knowledge. And the minutes claim that Surfside has a waiver to vary from the CARL requirements.
There is always this attitude of entitlement and disregard for what is good for the entire community. This policy is bad news, and only minor efforts are made to give the appearance that the rights of owners with trees are acknowledged. Migratory birds make occasional stops on Surfside waterways, and they benefit from the riparian zone, and some cover provided if they come ashore.
The peninsula and its' surroundings play an important part in the cycles of non-human life, so some compromise on the part of humans is warranted. The notion that undeveloped land needs to be made nice and neat ignores the fact that nature is messy, and there is beauty and purpose to it being left in a more natural state. This committee is an on-going disaster for community, unwilling to make any compromises. The chair has stated she would like all of the shorepines cut down. We're getting there. Most are ugly and dieing.
You are right on Steve, and everything you have stated is the truth. I was told that at a recent meeting with County officials, they stated concern and alarm at the clear cutting of trees on J Place. This will cause flooding problems to the residents below. They also agreed that Surfside needs a "land use" program.
On nature being messy, I want to point out that Deer Lake looks like a mud hole right now. That is due to a mating pair of geese who are digging up the bottom looking for food. This happens every Spring, usually with ducks, but will clear up later. Be careful when you drive by Deer Lake, because the pair are often on the edge of the street. The male is always standing guard. This is just one of the things that make our community special.
I was at Veterans Park the other sunny day, and noticed the neighbors to the South had butchered the pine trees there. It made me sad to see that. I had a nice visit with some locals who were on the bridge. I enjoyed relating the history of the park. They said they loved the bench and enjoyed sitting there and fishing with their grand kids. I related to them the story behind the donated park bench.
As we were visiting, several groups of people walked by as well as a couple sitting at the picnic table. Friendly nice members enjoying a beautiful Spring day. Ian't that what we are supposed to be about? I think so.
In a previous post: Welcome to Surfside, it’s just not right, Michael S. said:
"In a sense this is true but only because we have height limitations. If we didn't and trees were left to grow without limits the view of the ocean and horizon would be lost. That's just a fact. Over the years that I have walked down J I see some areas where half the ocean view to the horizon is lost. A friend of mine who lives on I pl use to see the horizon but can't now. So to continue to say that views wouldn't be lost if the covenants are gone is false."
In a sense Michael what you are saying is true, but only if we completely eliminated height restrictions. If we adopted the plan Patrick Johansen suggested years ago, all this fighting would have ended. His plan was to use a sighting tool to look from four feet above J Place to 24 feet above G or F Street and no trees would be allowed to grow above that height. This protects the views of those on J Place and eliminates unnecessary tree cutting. Everyone wins.
Michael, you are talking like a reasonable person so far in this conversation, thanks for that. Do you feel the plan Johansen suggested could be a reasonable solution that would eliminate much of the anger between the people of J Place and the rest of the community?
I find it interesting in the minutes that complaints are still being filed and yet most members you talk to indicate they feel there is too much damage being done with the cutting of trees. So what members are still having a problem with tree heights? I think we are going to have a problem with some of those scalped lots in the future! Cutting down so many trees is criminal in my opinion! In a day and age when we are so environmentally aware, surfside is in the dark ages!
No one has demonstrated that Patrick's idea would work. It sounds logical in a way, but depends on an invisible line in the sky. It also depends on some other sketchy factors such as sighting a spot on westside G St. that is 24 ft. high. from J Pl. nearly a quarter mile away. Using a transom which has a centering target and magnifying lens, this could be done, but not with a 4 ft. stick with an attachment. A 24 ft tree at that distance is less than a half inch tall (just a guess).
A major problem with the Tree Policy is that it has no written criteria to indicate that anyone in Surfside is guaranteed a view. Yet everyone KNOWS it's about the view. It is no small factor that the amount of sand being deposited on the beaches is moving the surf's edge a number of feet west each year, and pushing the dunes higher.
But the biggest obstacle is really, that there needs to be a clear definition of WHAT constitutes this "VIEW" ? If you have a house on a ridgetop, you have views. It is absurd to try and define a guaranteed view, or define what exactly constitutes a "view property". No one has been willing to try and make these definitions and owners aren't willing to allow a compliance officer into their homes to determine by ANY criteria, if an owner's view is obstructed.
Were there no tree restrictions in the covenants, an owner has a legitimate right to not have a neighboring tree blocking most of a large window. So what we really have is not based on valid criteria. It's just a random plotting of regions tagged with tree height restrictions, and no one is willing to submit to standard compliance criteria, which determines whether or not someone's view is significantly limited.
A house on J Pl. can't possibly have significant interference by a 26 ft tree on G st. The tree is about a half inch high from that distance, and the 2 ft. it is over the limit of 24 ft. is less than a sixteenth of an inch. Most people's view windows are 4 to 6 ft tall. What's 72 inches divided by a 1/16 ?
Get rid of the policy, start a program of replanting, establishing some criteria such as 30 ft limits, and limited density. Clarify limits of view driven compliance, requiring visual verification.
The J Place coalition has no interest in a compromise. You can come up with all kinds of ways to measure trees for a view, but why would the coalition agree with that. The present covenant is working just fine for them now. They have shown no interest in any change. Until you get a change in the Board, you will get no support on any change to the existing tree covenant.
Learn from the past folks. We saw Patrick and others try to be reasonable and work for a compromise. His committee was shot down before it could even start.
You first need to elect a Board that will represent all members. You need to vote in a bylaw change that requires member approval of any covenant change. Compromise with how to measure trees has not worked, and will not work, no matter how reasonable you may think it is. Look at the record. Look at how those in control vote and what they push for or against.
Your not going to win this one by being nice.
Looks to me like your putting Cox down. What's the difference.? Steve is not really my buddy, but I consider him a friend. That does not mean that we agree on everything or even what changes need to be done.
What I appreciate most, is that he has made the effort and taken the time to be informed on the issues. When he is attacked, he does respond in like. He is a good writer and expresses himself clearly. He is willing to get on here and identify himself, not like others, who do not use their real name, such as you.
When someone gets on here and attacks me with statements that I am not telling the truth, that is a personal attack and they will no longer be welcome, such as Michael S. I welcome a discussion on the issues and expect and encourage opposing views. He is right that "some people shouldn't even be on a blog". I think I eliminated some by requiring a name. That has not worked out perfectly, but is an improvement over what it was.
Both of these remarks sound like Mike Riley. I have said that anyone who wants to see a motion or 2 put on the ballot should avoid sounding like a rebel, or bombarding the members with proposals to change numerous policies. The BOT sets policy in general, but has resisted instating required owner approval of covenant changes. It is likely that a proposal to require that kind of approval would pass as a measure, if promoted by reasonable people, avoiding radical lingo.
The voting members and Annual Meeting attendees are not of a radical bent, but virtually ALL HOAs require member approval for covenant change. The time has come to make it so, but who promotes it and how will determine whether this can be approved, as it should be. I am very practically minded, and am not a radical. This would be a positive step for Surfside if handled properly.
Mike doesn't like this idea as a stand alone measure, and sought to get 9 measures on the docket last year. He dropped the ball mid-stream, as the BOT had tabled rather than approved his measures. So he is mad at me. Yeah, that makes sense (?).
1:54 - I have stated that anyone whose feelings are easily hurt by others simply disagreeing, should avoid the blog. You know what I said, but you would rather misrepresent what I said to get your jollies. I don't have much patience with people like you who target anyone who disagrees as an enemy.
Steve Cox said:
"No one has demonstrated that Patrick's idea would work. It sounds logical in a way, but depends on an invisible line in the sky. It also depends on some other sketchy factors such as sighting a spot on westside G St. that is 24 ft. high. from J Pl. nearly a quarter mile away. Using a transom which has a centering target and magnifying lens, this could be done, but not with a 4 ft. stick with an attachment. A 24 ft tree at that distance is less than a half inch tall (just a guess)."
So try it out. If we need a better tool, we need a better tool.
Just wondering, has anyone seen any tall trees blown down today so far.
It’s all about a “view” which only pertains to a few! Trees should only be cut if they are a danger or a nuisance in my opinion
Cora.... There isn't anything preventing someone trying/proving that this would be doable and practical. But there really is no reason to use a stick with a broom handle hinged to it, rather than a transom. And Sighting a line doesn't give any information other than if an object is visible above the sighted line.
To begin with, trees 3 blocks away shouldn't even be a part of the conversation. But the only way to change this policy is for the BOT to have the will to do so. That is far from the case, and the Board always has a healthy number of J Place owners seated as Trustees, opposed to revising the policy or surveying opinion in the community on this contentious issue.
You obviously don't know me or anything about me. I have no current plans to run for the Board, nor am I organizing any kind of uprising. Good luck with living inside your own head. I have no idea where you came up with these misconceptions.
It’s going to be a problem getting anyone to run for the board, but hopefully some will come forward this year. Agree with George we need representation from all areas of surfside. First on the agenda should be the members voting to change that covenants have to be changed by a vote of the membership
Post a Comment