June 20, 2020
This was the last Board Meeting for Scott Winegar, Mark Scott and Annette DeLeest, as their elected terms end in the second week of July. Winegar will no longer be the Board President after that time.
SURFSIDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
REGULAR BOARD MEETING SUMMARY
June 20, 2020
President Scott Winegar called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM. Trustees present were Gary Williams, Rudd Turner, Kurt Olds, James Clancy, Annette deLeest, Ric Minch and Mark Scott all via WebEx.
The agenda was amended and approved, removing the fine policy update and adding in the 6-year water plan from Gray & Osborne, the Hazard Mitigation Grants and the RV lot/Compactor design.
The May 16, 2020 minutes were approved with a minor addition of the vote needed to be added into the minutes for item two of new business.
Moss Adams reviewed the 2019 audit results, about 30 minutes, audit was very clean. No motions were made.
The trustees discussed the tree height variance for the Surfcrest condos and made a motion to increase the tree height from 16’ to 30’ to match the building height of the condo.
Complaint #5295 was tabled until July when both parties are able to be at the meeting, fines and enforcement will not be suspended.
The fence put up by member David Gray was determined to be on Surfside property and will be removed within 90 days.
The late fee penalties and 3% service charge for credit card users will end on June 30, 2020.
Larry Raymer was added as Co-Chair for the Fish & Waterways committee.
David & Shelly Quint have requested a height variance for the home they’re building on J Pl. The request was accepted since the height will not negatively impact property and conforms with neighbors.
The building height adjustment for 30802 I St was tabled until the variance and fee have been received.
The Golf Tournament Fundraiser will be moved to August 22, 2020 due to the impact of COVID-19.
The Long-Term Property Maintenance Plan for Surfside for 2020-2025 was accepted.
The Surfside BOT has endorsed the Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grants to the Washington State Management Division.
The Firewise chipping site will open June 27, 2020 at 10am and run until 2 pm. Hours of operation are Saturday & Wednesday 10 am-2 pm. All COVID-19 requirements will be in effect. Please see the detailed page in this week’s weekender.
All staff, committee and trustee reports were accepted.
The board moved to closed session to discuss employee wages. There were no motions made after the closed session.
The meeting adjourned at 3:25pm
17 comments:
So, are there odds on whether Williams or Clancy will rule? Or will they ignore the rules and just stay in place until elections can happen after the "pandemic" is over, meaning, elected for life.
Typically, the summary gives a vague description of Hazard Mitigation Grants, but does not clearly state what the hell this is. The BOT should be very aware of the many members who disapproved of their filing for the initial grant, which was done without BOT approval, only approving it AFTER the grant had been received.
If in fact there was a legitimate loss of wages by 2 employees who have been claimed to have been furlowed, then we would not have been told by Trustees that the money would be used to pay for computer upgrades and IT assistance.
Here it seems to be indicated that yet another grant, or 2, have been applied for. Trustees seem to be living in a protective bubble that has prevented them from being aware of the tragic losses suffered by so many small businesses, many surely unable to reopen or survive. The BOT is not acting in a responsible way by using their high profile to get preferred treatment, and basically stealing from the larger community, the State's small businesses.
The lion's share of peninsula businesses depend on walk-in traffic and unrestricted capacities, such as restaurants. Many businesses will not be able to pay employees and rent on limited capacities and the decrease in citizen patronage for health reasons.
And seriously - 30 foot trees are suddenly approved in favor of the Condos that bulldozed the dunes ? After the onslaught from tree "complaints" (fabricated demands), this is really unforgivable. If such a change came so easily, why wasn't this change made for the entire community ? It's too late for 90% of the community's trees, but ending the micro-management is necessary. Continuing it is elitist b.s. used to intimidate members, and needs to stop.
As stated by Mr. Cox, the HOA does not rely on a flow of “customers” to generate and maintain an influx of cash. They have a “captive cash flow”. Any layoffs were not due to a loss of funds. Probably IF and I do mean IF there was a lay-off or two, I suspect t an individual requested it to qualify for unemployment. You do remember that the government was giving those on unemployment an extra $600 per week. That usually gave people more than they would normally earn “on the. job”. So, bad Board, bad employee. It fits.
Don't like to counter Cox with facts because it ends up with his name calling. But here goes.
The change for the condos has the tree height equal to the building heights, which is the same for the houses in the community. Can you give an example where the tree covenant height is less than the house height limits?
If not, than you are making a false statement.
Just to clarify for you Steve, the Surfcrest condos are off of 357th and G. Tree heights have always matched building heights, be it a lot or a house. Condos are no different. These condos are not the ones who bulldozed the dunes. The bulldozing happened off the Oysterville approach.
But wasn’t the change needed because the tree height was 16 ft there? I thought that’s what I saw on a map in documentation for the waiver
5:47....You like to make ridiculous accusations, but don't have the guts to "own" your comments by identifying yourself. I appreciate ACTUAL facts, and understand fully that tree heights have been keyed to building heights. Whether or not that is consistently so in Surfside may be a valid question, though I recognize that is the intention. What I also recognize, is that this system was settled on as the criteria, because attorneys with the HOA insisted that reference to "views" be struck from the covenants.
Obviously, this is a random criteria that has resulted in a terribly ugly landscape in this community, and has resulted in the death of hundreds of otherwise healthy trees. This is a rotten policy that forces all owners west of the ridge to waste thousands of dollars annually, supposedly placating ridgetop owner's belief that they are guaranteed views. That is not the case.
Shorepines don't tend to grow taller than 30 feet, so this would have been a perfect time to make 30 feet a community standard.
Rhonda....Thanks for clarifying which condos were involved. So the next question is, how did these condos manage to get a 6 foot variance on the 24 foot limit on buildings ? Is that lot in a 30 foot zone ? When were they built ? It shouldn't be surprising that those opposed to the policy in the first place, find this Board action a curiosity.
Growth: Shore Pine grows fairly fast, typically to 20 or 35 feet (6-10m), but the tallest are over 100 feet (33m). The oldest are about 250 years old.
Ref: http://nativeplantspnw.com/shore-pine-pinus-contorta/
Prof.Arthur Kruckeberg, expert on plants of the N.W., and noted botanist at the Univ. of Wash. states "a species so widespread (as lodgepole pine)is bound to have distinctive varieties. Botanists recognize two geographic races. The lowland variety is the Shore Pine so frequently seen....in the San Juan Islands and along the Oregon and Wash. coasts. Open-grown, it may reach 50 ft. in height, but is more often of a lower almost bushy stature. It grows where salt spray, wind and sterile soils prevail."
The other "race" is found in more mountainous areas. People want to insist that these trees will grow very tall, but it hasn't been seen in Surfside, nor will we likely see a tree grow anywhere near 50 ft., even if left alone. None of the trees beyond G. St. homes get very tall, and most look like bushes.
Kruckeburg also describes Shore Pines as having most of their foliage toward the ends of branches, giving them an open aspect, when left untrimmed. My information indicates that lodgepole pines in general have a much shorter lifespan than other conifers in our forests.
The issue here is really that there is no guarantee of views in our covenants, or other unique privileges of small portions of Surfside's membership. In fact, it is technically forbidden to grant special rights to a portion of the community, that is denied to others.
So your expert botanist states shore pines will grow to 50 ft. but you know that won't happen in SHOA? Please explain how you know this, and, why SHOA shore pines will be stunted in growth.
I have pictures of SHOA from 1968 and 1972 showing no trees in SHOA.
I request/demand we remove ALL trees from SHOA (G st. to J place) and be done with this ridiculous requirement to trim trees. No trees HAS to be a better appearance than the chopped/dead trees we have now...
The expert states that only free standing trees have a chance of growing to 50 ft. We occasionally see individual trees that have even foliage all the way to the base. It is unusual to see such trees, and particularly in taller species, they catch our eye because they are so perfect in form.
The expert also emphasizes that most shore pines are hampered by salty air, heavy winds, and sterile soil, all a constant in Surfside. The fact that the community has been burdened by this archaic policy isn't a reason to cut all of the trees, but simply eliminate the policy. Your request is a ridiculous demand, and back-assward thinking.
Hey Stevie, thanks for the free dinner.
I wrote my comment, correcting your rant about "why wasn't the change made for the entire community" by stating the fact that it was already in place. This is well known and was part of the discussion which led to the approval, which you would have known if you had viewed the meeting instead of going into the usual attack mode. Along with that you got the condos wrong which I didn't point out but thankfully Rhonda did.
Anyhoo, when I wrote the comment I said to my wife you wouldn't admit your error and instead, per your S.O.P, would attack with the predictable anonymous rant and would bring up another wrong accusation like you did with the "consistently" thing. Along with that the same stuff as always. She said you wouldn't because you were obviously wrong. So we had a nice little bet with dinner at the Depot on the line, so again thanks.
My statement still holds true. There is no place in SHOA where the tree heights are required to be less than the building heights and other than making further false statements you can't provide evidence to the contrary because it doesn't exist. The only thing that is ridiculous is your self righteous behavior.
If you have a problem with anonymous comments like mine take it up with George it's his blog, or do us all a favor and remove it from your angry repetitive rant list.
Yes, please remove it from your angry repetitive rant list.
But, of course I doubt you will.
In response to Steve regarding the Condos off 357th and G, I did some digging. They were built in 1984. Originally not part of Surfside. Not sure when that changed. Property descriptions do not include a block, division or lot, in fact, I could not find anywhere in our covenants mentioning Surfcrest condos. I see lots of other ones mentioned, but not Surfcrest. One of those condo buildings sits at 35 feet. From observing the view on J place when I walk, the trees are not over 35 ft. (yet).
Thanks Ronda. Interesting information. I appreciate the research.
To add to Rhonda's comment.
The tallest building is 35 ft the smallest is 30 ft, that's why the height change was 30 ft.
Another interesting fact that goes to the usual tree covenant rants here. The owners there are not allowed to plant trees on the west side of their property. So the people who keep saying that it is against the law don't know what they are talking about.
In response to 8:04, I don't think anyone in their right mind would plant any of these trees, especially the west side. These trees appear and grow like wildflowers. Just walk any beach trail and see how many just pop up. The crew who maintains these beach trails need to just bring the clippers and remove the small ones before they get out of hand.
Post a Comment