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.
An interesting column. I understood the past variance referenced was verbal and not written, is that accurate? This seems like a unique situation that hopefully can have a reasonable ending. If I were a board member I would poll he surrounding lots for their opinion. Assuming all were okay with the tree, a variance would be granted for as long as the tree were healthy and as long as none of the impacted lots had a concern. Once either of those changed the tree owner would have to remove the tree at their cost. They would also acknowledge/accept any liability associated with the tree should it come down or any other type of issue. The HOA is in a tight spot and legally has to maintain the covenants to protect all who agreed with them when purchasing property here.
Would make sense to just exempt the Sitka spruce trees. They are the trees the eagles seem to like and are important for their habitat. There are very few of them in Surfside I think. Would make it simple and straight forward and wouldn't have any bearing on the issues we're having right now with all the overgrown shore pines.
@3:34 - the challenges I see with that are potential liability concerns and you are not protecting the rights of the surrounding lots. If the tree were designated as protected the issue would be moot but that likely, in my opinion, is a long shot.
I find it interesting that the owners weren't there. Curious if the organizer got permission to be on the property or just did the usual trespassing.
Argue for or against but please quit using the Eagles as a validation. They rarely if ever land there. There are plenty trees not by homes for them to hang out in, which they do.
Liability and hoa tight spot my a**, what about the parts of surfside that have no restrictions? Liability laws etc are already on the books per the county and state. More about intimidation n power.
@3:57 - no, just trying to offer what I thought might be a reasonable approach solely from my perspective and understanding of what the challenges may be. I am not in any position to yield intimidation or power but I respect your differing opinion.
Basically what happened is this. Years ago a member made a tree complaint against this and some other trees which obviously were over height. He was pressured by, and you can guess who, to withdraw his complaint which he did for this one because the tree wasn't directly in front of his property. So that is why it remained. There was no actual variance as "someone" wants you to believe.
A proper variance may not have been completed back then, but the complaint was withdrawn and the owners told it was ok. I would think we would do the honorable thing and acknowledge the compliance officers action. Remember that this “proactive “ compliance method was only implemented in August of 2019 by a simple vote of the BOT. I think this is a special circumstance having nothing to do with eagles or anything but the word and actions of the person acting on behalf of this organization! If this is going to be the practice I guess the letter we received March 2020 stating our lights were in compliance isn’t worth the paper it’s written on! And this letter was only written after months of asking the BOT to clarify what more we needed to do to be in compliance! It’s very disingenuous to expect a member to “follow” all the rules when in turn they do not! Think about it, it could be you next!
Agree with JoAnne. SHOA officials made a decision and documented that decision.
As JoAnne stated, this is a special circumstance having nothing to do with eagles or anything but the word and actions of the persons acting on behalf of this organization!
The board in 2009 did not make that decision, it was the chair of the tree committee back in 2009 that made the decision without going to that board. She had no authority to dismiss the complaint. The board was not made aware that they were given a waiver. No chair has no authority over who follows the covenants and who doesn't
It was the chair of the tree committee AND the compliance officer. If SHOA representatives did not follow proper procedures, then SHOA is responsible for the outcome. The member followed the procedures as instructed by the SHOA representatives.
Yes agreed! The committee chairman and compliance officer didn’t follow through! Oh well, that’s on us! Members should not be the ones in charge of making sure certain procedures are followed as we were forced to do!
It seems certain that a variance was drafted for the records, though the details aren't important at this time. Clearly the State has long had specific protections in their arsenal for the purpose of protecting habitat where deemed needed.
The HOA is run by volunteers and the enforcement efforts exercised have varied with different personalities and sensibilities. There is no great urgency to cut this or any tree in Surfside, nor does the future of the current Tree policy hinge on what is decided in this single instance.
If you read the article in the Observer, the columnist offers some information regarding Federal and State habitat protections.
I'd add that most wildlife spend a major portion of their time hunting & foraging for food. Predators expend a great deal of energy on failed attacks/attempts to catch prey. Eagles are huge birds, requiring a lot of food, and needing perches to rest between hunting efforts.
I've seen them resting on Surfside trail posts and nearby weather stations, which are barely big enough to support them. I think most owners and guests value the experiences they have in Surfside viewing wildlife. We often get to see a wide range of creatures that enhance our appreciation of our geographic location.
The needless decimation of the community's trees simply doesn't fit the awesome natural beauty of the northend. It needs to stop. As for the variance, it could have been removed from the files by an opponent, or damaged in storage as some older records were. That's why new storage was built into the Water Dept. warehouse.
It would make some pretty good fire wood, some of it could be used, once cured, to make nice bowls or something that could be sold to fund the homeless or druggies that tend to pry on the empty house in the area?
Yeah, it would be a real shame not to miss an opportunity to screw with these Surfside residents. The decision needs to be made on the merits that have protected this tree for the last 10 years. Surfside honored the State and Federal protections, and no urgency exists.
The tree isn't over 40 feet tall, and doesn't effect anyone's views. It's in the process of recovering from Spruce budworm, making a pass through the N.W.. Many recover, many don't. Spruce doesn't make good firewood, neither does Shorepine or Cedar.
Guess you haven't noticed - There are lots of trees that can make great firewood in the N.W.. No need to cut your neighbors tree down.
Surfside is a "homeowner's assoc." and not a public campground. Surfside donates to the local foodbank annually. Citizens who choose to live a life of dependence on illegal drugs, become a burden to their friends, family, and nation. Many agencies offer means to rehab for those who seek it. Nothing funny about it.
The only ones who are “addicted” here are people like anonymous 8:53 and others who can offer nothing but insults and quips that have nothing to do with important issues concerning this HOA.
No one with any sense wants to top their trees, particularly if they look nice and aren't really in anyone's way. Of course enforcememt should not show partiality, but they do.
But prior to the last three years, the chairman of the Tree Comm. listened to individual requests for some leeway timewise. He was eventually removed as chair due to pressure on the BOT. He didn't even get a "heads-up" as a Board member. He missed a meeting, which was rare, and Williams removed him, putting Peg Olds in the position.
Curious as to why between 306th and 311th on the WEST, NOT EAST, side of J, those trees are not topped? Those along that west side are just as big as the big tree on I causing all the feathers to be ruffled by Peg, Pam and Annette
Because as it is written your tree height can't be higher than your building. You also can't have your building as high as the condos either. Same with the condos north of Oysterville rd. They both were grandfathered in.
I'm sorry 8:24, but maybe you should consider borrowing the tree committees laser. From your angle they may look that way because they are on higher ground but none on the west side of J measure as tall as that tree.
Another one for the Ridge folks!! It benefits them - their view - WILL IT EVEVER END ???:?"? How LONG do we have tp upt up with their wims ?????? A lot of us had to cut our trees - we did NOT get any special favors! Why should the Ridge folks ??? Qe had to cut special trees !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@1:44, perhaps peg, pam and Annette need to go take a look on the west side of J between 306th and 311th. Those trees are way above build heights. Also a board member has trees above building height. Hey Peg, the trees on the south side of your house are above the house top. Selective enforcement strikes again
29 comments:
An interesting column. I understood the past variance referenced was verbal and not written, is that accurate?
This seems like a unique situation that hopefully can have a reasonable ending. If I were a board member I would poll he surrounding lots for their opinion. Assuming all were okay with the tree, a variance would be granted for as long as the tree were healthy and as long as none of the impacted lots had a concern. Once either of those changed the tree owner would have to remove the tree at their cost. They would also acknowledge/accept any liability associated with the tree should it come down or any other type of issue.
The HOA is in a tight spot and legally has to maintain the covenants to protect all who agreed with them when purchasing property here.
Would make sense to just exempt the Sitka spruce trees. They are the trees the eagles seem to like and are important for their habitat. There are very few of them in Surfside I think. Would make it simple and straight forward and wouldn't have any bearing on the issues we're having right now with all the overgrown shore pines.
@3:34 - the challenges I see with that are potential liability concerns and you are not protecting the rights of the surrounding lots. If the tree were designated as protected the issue would be moot but that likely, in my opinion, is a long shot.
I find it interesting that the owners weren't there. Curious if the organizer got permission to be on the property or just did the usual trespassing.
Argue for or against but please quit using the Eagles as a validation. They rarely if ever land there. There are plenty trees not by homes for them to hang out in, which they do.
Liability and hoa tight spot my a**, what about the parts of surfside that have no restrictions? Liability laws etc are already on the books per the county and state. More about intimidation n power.
@3:57 - no, just trying to offer what I thought might be a reasonable approach solely from my perspective and understanding of what the challenges may be. I am not in any position to yield intimidation or power but I respect your differing opinion.
This sounds like SHOA already made a decision 11 years ago. Doesn't even need a debate if was settled in the past.
To 2:32:
Basically what happened is this. Years ago a member made a tree complaint against this and some other trees which obviously were over height. He was pressured by, and you can guess who, to withdraw his complaint which he did for this one because the tree wasn't directly in front of his property. So that is why it remained. There was no actual variance as "someone" wants you to believe.
A proper variance may not have been completed back then, but the complaint was withdrawn and the owners told it was ok. I would think we would do the honorable thing and acknowledge the compliance officers action. Remember that this “proactive “ compliance method was only implemented in August of 2019 by a simple vote of the BOT.
I think this is a special circumstance having nothing to do with eagles or anything but the word and actions of the person acting on behalf of this organization!
If this is going to be the practice I guess the letter we received March 2020 stating our lights were in compliance isn’t worth the paper it’s written on! And this letter was only written after months of asking the BOT to clarify what more we needed to do to be in compliance! It’s very disingenuous to expect a member to “follow” all the rules when in turn they do not!
Think about it, it could be you next!
Agree with JoAnne. SHOA officials made a decision and documented that decision.
As JoAnne stated, this is a special circumstance having nothing to do with eagles or anything but the word and actions of the persons acting on behalf of this organization!
SHOA should honor the decision. End of story.
The board in 2009 did not make that decision, it was the chair of the tree committee back in 2009 that made the decision without going to that board. She had no authority to dismiss the complaint. The board was not made aware that they were given a waiver. No chair has no authority over who follows the covenants and who doesn't
It was the chair of the tree committee AND the compliance officer. If SHOA representatives did not follow proper procedures, then SHOA is responsible for the outcome. The member followed the procedures as instructed by the SHOA representatives.
Yes agreed! The committee chairman and compliance officer didn’t follow through! Oh well, that’s on us! Members should not be the ones in charge of making sure certain procedures are followed as we were forced to do!
I understand your logic @Joanne but from my perspective it only applies if there is something in writing.
There is something in writing!
How many times do people have to say it is in writing. There is no question that it is in writing. If you have doubts call the office and ask them.
It seems certain that a variance was drafted for the records, though the details aren't important at this time. Clearly the State has long had specific protections in their arsenal for the purpose of protecting habitat where deemed needed.
The HOA is run by volunteers and the enforcement efforts exercised have varied with different personalities and sensibilities. There is no great urgency to cut this or any tree in Surfside, nor does the future of the current Tree policy hinge on what is decided in this single instance.
If you read the article in the Observer, the columnist offers some information regarding Federal and State habitat protections.
I'd add that most wildlife spend a major portion of their time hunting & foraging for food. Predators expend a great deal of energy on failed attacks/attempts to catch prey. Eagles are huge birds, requiring a lot of food, and needing perches to rest between hunting efforts.
I've seen them resting on Surfside trail posts and nearby weather stations, which are barely big enough to support them. I think most owners and guests value the experiences they have in Surfside viewing wildlife. We often get to see a wide range of creatures that enhance our appreciation of our geographic location.
The needless decimation of the community's trees simply doesn't fit the awesome natural beauty of the northend. It needs to stop. As for the variance, it could have been removed from the files by an opponent, or damaged in storage as some older records were. That's why new storage was built into the Water Dept. warehouse.
It would make some pretty good fire wood, some of it could be used, once cured, to make nice bowls or something that could be sold to fund the homeless or druggies that tend to pry on the empty house in the area?
Yeah, it would be a real shame not to miss an opportunity to screw with these Surfside residents. The decision needs to be made on the merits that have protected this tree for the last 10 years. Surfside honored the State and Federal protections, and no urgency exists.
The tree isn't over 40 feet tall, and doesn't effect anyone's views. It's in the process of recovering from Spruce budworm, making a pass through the N.W.. Many recover, many don't. Spruce doesn't make good firewood, neither does Shorepine or Cedar.
Guess you haven't noticed - There are lots of trees that can make great firewood in the N.W.. No need to cut your neighbors tree down.
Can't have homeless low life here. As for the "druggies", hell, most of the members are, in one way or another.
Surfside is a "homeowner's assoc." and not a public campground. Surfside donates to the local foodbank annually. Citizens who choose to live a life of dependence on illegal drugs, become a burden to their friends, family, and nation. Many agencies offer means to rehab for those who seek it. Nothing funny about it.
The only ones who are “addicted” here are people like anonymous 8:53 and others who can offer nothing but insults and quips that have nothing to do with important issues concerning this HOA.
Which board member has trees over height, but did not get a notice to cut them? Selective enforcement strikes again
No one with any sense wants to top their trees, particularly if they look nice and aren't really in anyone's way. Of course enforcememt should not show partiality, but they do.
But prior to the last three years, the chairman of the Tree Comm. listened to individual requests for some leeway timewise. He was eventually removed as chair due to pressure on the BOT. He didn't even get a "heads-up" as a Board member. He missed a meeting, which was rare, and Williams removed him, putting Peg Olds in the position.
Curious as to why between 306th and 311th on the WEST, NOT EAST, side of J, those trees are not topped? Those along that west side are just as big as the big tree on I causing all the feathers to be ruffled by Peg, Pam and Annette
I need someone to explain why those of us east of the condos on 338 have to have 16 ft trees when those condos are much taller?
To JoAnne:
Because as it is written your tree height can't be higher than your building. You also can't have your building as high as the condos either. Same with the condos north of Oysterville rd. They both were grandfathered in.
I'm sorry 8:24, but maybe you should consider borrowing the tree committees laser. From your angle they may look that way because they are on higher ground but none on the west side of J measure as tall as that tree.
Another one for the Ridge folks!! It benefits them - their view - WILL IT EVEVER END ???:?"? How LONG do we have tp upt up with their wims ?????? A lot of us had to cut our trees - we did NOT get any special favors! Why should the Ridge folks ??? Qe had to cut special trees !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@1:44, perhaps peg, pam and Annette need to go take a look on the west side of J between 306th and 311th. Those trees are way above build heights. Also a board member has trees above building height. Hey Peg, the trees on the south side of your house are above the house top.
Selective enforcement strikes again
Post a Comment