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.
SHEDS
This page is for discussions about storage sheds....
10 comments:
Anonymous
said...
You should remove the apostrophes from the words sheds and trees, that is not proper grammar. -‘s is He’s (he is), it’s (it is)
So George .... Was the covenant change regarding shed eaves approved to move forward at the Annual Meeting ? Someone here said it was, and I hadn't heard that from anyone else. I did see that the BOT voted to make the change, but thought it was a redo of their last approval, having changed the proposal.
Approval by the members is not required. All that is required is the opportunity for members to voice their opinions and views at a scheduled meeting. I have seen this done at a regular Board meeting. That is legal as the requirement has been met. This was nothing more than a propaganda move to justify the Board making as change. It is not clear if what little said at the Annual Meeting was enough.
I expected that the proposed covenant change would have been done at one of the regular Board meetings following the Annual meeting. I think that was done, but I was not there. I did see where a check was issued to record with the County, as required, a covenant change. I will ask about it and see what I can find out. It may be in the Board meeting minutes or a revision of the covenants posted on line, but we know how long it takes for current information to be posted.
My best guess at this time, is that the change was made. So much for transparency.
Thanks George. I knew that the BOT has the final say, but I'm surprised that there isn't even a nod to the members by having a vote among the small group at an Annual Meeting. As I have been saying, It is ridiculous to pass a covenant change that they know will put at least a dozen nice sheds into non-compliance.
It is strange that what owners clearly want is a minimum of freedom to personalize their structures, but the BOT wants to make this a standoff to demonstrate their authority. It also doesn't make sense to have a different standard for RV lots, and there is.
I think that the covenant should allow minimal appurtenances that do not compromise the structural integrity, and ignore the eaves restriction, which is just a random construct. A small porch can be built without actually needing to be connected to a structure - like they have on Yurts at the Cape D Park, and allowing woodracks would be handy for RVers.
Insist on approval of accurate plans, and limit enforcement to making certain the plans are complete and a finished inspection is done. I think there is merit to setting more liberal but specific guidelines, and consulting the County to seek a moderate departure from county regs. that will be carefully administered.
We can probably assume that Surfside is by far, the largest Homeowners Assoc. in the County, and have the means to monitor this effectively. But since Stickbuilt lots can build numerous outbuildings, a shed can easily be called a shop, and allow greater design possibilities.
We see that people want more options, so why is the BOT so intent on clamping down on this very trivial issue ? It seems it began with wanting to screw with Patrick, and now we have these stupid restrictions. Patrick is nowhere to be found in Surfside.
Steve, I agree with what you are saying. The Board should be working with the members so that all can get their best use from their property. Common sense needs to return for the benefit of all. The Board was elected to represent the members. They have the appearance of being them against us.
The Board had intended the change to be retroactive to a year ago when they first approved it. Nothing to the contrary was ever stated in the final motion, and there is no provision for anything being "grandfathered in". That seems an accurate assumption of what is proper, and probably what is legally appropriate. That has not seemed to be a particular concern of the Williams BOT. These folks have been getting violation notices, so who should be clarifying this situation ?
The entire effort is mean-spirited and aimed at discouraging RV owners, by targeting them over trifles.
10 comments:
You should remove the apostrophes from the words sheds and trees, that is not proper grammar. -‘s is He’s (he is), it’s (it is)
Thanks, done..and trees...Never too old two learn. lol
So George .... Was the covenant change regarding shed eaves approved to move forward at the Annual Meeting ? Someone here said it was, and I hadn't heard that from anyone else. I did see that the BOT voted to make the change, but thought it was a redo of their last approval, having changed the proposal.
Can you clear this up ?
Approval by the members is not required. All that is required is the opportunity for members to voice their opinions and views at a scheduled meeting. I have seen this done at a regular Board meeting. That is legal as the requirement has been met. This was nothing more than a propaganda move to justify the Board making as change. It is not clear if what little said at the Annual Meeting was enough.
I expected that the proposed covenant change would have been done at one of the regular Board meetings following the Annual meeting. I think that was done, but I was not there. I did see where a check was issued to record with the County, as required, a covenant change. I will ask about it and see what I can find out. It may be in the Board meeting minutes or a revision of the covenants posted on line, but we know how long it takes for current information to be posted.
My best guess at this time, is that the change was made. So much for transparency.
Thanks George. I knew that the BOT has the final say, but I'm surprised that there isn't even a nod to the members by having a vote among the small group at an Annual Meeting. As I have been saying, It is ridiculous to pass a covenant change that they know will put at least a dozen nice sheds into non-compliance.
It is strange that what owners clearly want is a minimum of freedom to personalize their structures, but the BOT wants to make this a standoff to demonstrate their authority. It also doesn't make sense to have a different standard for RV lots, and there is.
I think that the covenant should allow minimal appurtenances that do not compromise the structural integrity, and ignore the eaves restriction, which is just a random construct. A small porch can be built without actually needing to be connected to a structure - like they have on Yurts at the Cape D Park, and allowing woodracks would be handy for RVers.
Insist on approval of accurate plans, and limit enforcement to making certain the plans are complete and a finished inspection is done. I think there is merit to setting more liberal but specific guidelines, and consulting the County to seek a moderate departure from county regs. that will be carefully administered.
We can probably assume that Surfside is by far, the largest Homeowners Assoc. in the County, and have the means to monitor this effectively. But since Stickbuilt lots can build numerous outbuildings, a shed can easily be called a shop, and allow greater design possibilities.
We see that people want more options, so why is the BOT so intent on clamping down on this very trivial issue ? It seems it began with wanting to screw with Patrick, and now we have these stupid restrictions. Patrick is nowhere to be found in Surfside.
Steve, I agree with what you are saying. The Board should be working with the members so that all can get their best use from their property. Common sense needs to return for the benefit of all. The Board was elected to represent the members. They have the appearance of being them against us.
In light of recent revelations I would suggest putting the shed issues on the back burner.
The shed issues are just a part of the whole corruption picture. It is all evidence to the same thing.
If code is changed after the fact, all those you say are now in violation are grandfathered in. Do you want more lawsuits on you hands?
The Board had intended the change to be retroactive to a year ago when they first approved it. Nothing to the contrary was ever stated in the final motion, and there is no provision for anything being "grandfathered in". That seems an accurate assumption of what is proper, and probably what is legally appropriate. That has not seemed to be a particular concern of the Williams BOT. These folks have been getting violation notices, so who should be clarifying this situation ?
The entire effort is mean-spirited and aimed at discouraging RV owners, by targeting them over trifles.
Post a Comment