|
Post by Admin on Mar 5, 2014 18:44:20 GMT -5
No wonder there is so much confusion about carports:
Here is the proposed rule presented on the separate informational ballot insert on Feb 13, 2014 which passed:
Here is the proposed rule presented at the Jan 7 2014 Informational Meeting:
And, there was NO language on the Ballot form itself!
Note that the first part of the passed rule is pretty much "common sense"; the second part was added to allow a side-positioned carport with a total overall limitation. The rule goes on to say the setback and construction standard must comply with SLohA and Polk County. Since SLohA did not impose a construction standard, only Polk County counts.
Here is what SLohA says about front and side setbacks, according to the latest R & R Amendments recorded 4/11/08:
Note that the above refers ONLY to new concrete and placement of the "unit"; presumably the "unit" refers to Covenant-prohibited manufactured homes and mobile homes. Unit placement is very vague and does not specify setback in terms of feet/inches measurement but only "relative placement". I read this as No Front Setback per se; front setback is relative to non-encroachment on the rear easement (5') and setback (2') so that the unit MAY be placed as far back as the rear easement will allow but does not have to be.
Here is what the latest R & R, recorded 4/11/08, says about Side & Rear Setback:
Ignoring the fact that I believe that the R & R #4 Architectural rules are Null and Void as they refer to structures not permitted by Covenants--that would be all manufactured homes and mobile homes--we can pretend, for a moment, that they do. The rationale for this belief is that Rules Cannot Conflict with Covenants. Rules must relate to and "flesh out" Covenants. Since SLohA setback rules do not reference carport structures (they only reference permanent buildings, units and concrete), it would seem reasonable to TOTALLY look to Polk County Code for setback requirements AND construction materials.
There are No Rules which refer to the construction and setback of carports and, if we are pretending that the Rules are valid, the only SLohA requirement is to a) get a permission slip and b) carports should adhere to the overall structure coverage limitation of 48' X 24'. That's how I see it.
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and the interpretations above are my opinion and offered for informational purposes only. These interpretations should not be relied upon if you are contemplating legal action. Consult an attorney for legal advice.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 5, 2014 18:48:54 GMT -5
Cross posted from Rules/Schmules/Manufactured Homes:
I have learned that IT is stopping contractors at the gate while she is thinking things over about carports and manufactured houses. She is confused these days. She forgot that this is a country that guarantees freedom from bully tyrants and dictators and that owning property carries with it a "bundle of legal rights".
Owners have a PROPERTY RIGHT to invite guests onto their own property (as well as to forbid others to enter). IT cannot take that right away.
There was a very large lawsuit recently in Seminole County AGAINST an HOA that attempted to prevent contractors and guests of an owner from entering the property, using gate access as strong arm technique to bully the owner into compliance. The homeowner got a permanent injunction against the HOA and is currently seeking a damages award.
Here is a suggestion: Talk with your contractor about coming back to the gate for entry to your residence. If denied, you the homeowner, should call Polk County Sheriff. The Sheriff might want to see your deed, proving you are the owner and perhaps a permit, showing that you are legally building a structure. The Sheriff will then tell the manager that the dispute is a civil matter and she should allow your contractor to enter as a permitted guest.
The "mamager" can have a hissy fit later and threaten you with all kinds of things. But she cannot take away your property right--the right to invite whoever you want to come onto your property. (If there were no gate in a "normal, non-HOA setting" this kind of bizarre situation would never happen--it's the S-bag Bubble phenomenon!)
SHE should be the one intimidated by owners who are suffering extra costs for her lack of knowledge of the proper manner to handle homeowner disputes. The Covenants do not give the Association the authority to take away property rights. And don't be fooled by Rules! The Rules don't matter one bit in this case because the Carport Rule does not relate to a Covenant. Don't let her bully you!
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and the interpretations above are my opinion and offered for informational purposes only. These interpretations should not be relied upon if you are contemplating legal action. Consult an attorney for legal advice.
|
|
|
Post by Solution Masters on Mar 5, 2014 21:27:14 GMT -5
If you want to get your contractor inside just drive out and then drive in while the contractor piggybacks your vehicle. Since you know your contractor/guest is going to your unit it is fine.
Piggybacking is not illegal unless done entering Federal Restricted Areas, SLR is not .
Neither management nor security have the authority to stop you in traffic inside SLR . You do not have to verbally acknowledge either manager or security other than to tell them to get lost or you will call the Sheriffs Deputy .
Remember, Florida is a Stand Your Ground state , any acts of hostile aggression may be met with deadly force so tell anyone other than Law Enforcement to leave for their own personal safety and go write a letter and mail it to you with their signature at the bottom.
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Mar 10, 2014 10:49:06 GMT -5
O Dear! A little birdie tweeted that there was a conflagration on Parson Tom with a nearly-finished carport installation. There was a Powwow this morning among Owner, contractor, PB and IT to discuss disagreement about carport--for which IT had issued a permission slip to the owner without actually SEEING the lot first.
The County issued their permit based on the old site plan with a Singlewide, which was a county error. There is now a DoubleWide on the site. Unfortunately, IT didn't actually go and look at the site before approving the Owner's plan. Reportedly, the County will work with the Owner to fix the problem. Reportedly, SLohA refuses to work with the Owner to fix the problem.
IT ordered the Owner to remove it. OWNER said NO! Contractor offered to remove the carport, take back the materials and make some kind settlement with OWNER. OWNER said "NO THANKS! The Carport Stays--S ue Me!"
Looks like BOD fears about getting individually sued may be coming true. Owner reportedly owns several businesses throughout Florida and is not intimidated by IT and an impotent set of Covenants and Rules.
Something tells me things are really gonna Rock 'n Roll in SLR this year!
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Mar 10, 2014 12:23:13 GMT -5
Did a "quick 'n dirty" title search on the lot which is the subject of this morning's carport conflagration. In order for SLohA to make a legal complaint, it must show that the OWNER is subject to the Declaration of Covenants of the applicable Plat.
What I found was that the Covenants were reimposed, by personal deed, in October 1989 and therefore, the Covenants would not be expired by MRTA until October 2019.
This does not mean that anything in the Covenants does or does not apply to the lot; only that SLohA has established its right to complain (which it seems to do a lot lately about everything). Whether the complaint is upheld or dismissed is an entirely different matter.
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and the interpretations above are my opinion and offered for informational purposes only. These interpretations should not be relied upon if you are contemplating legal action. Consult an attorney for legal advice.
|
|
|
Post by Jm Grnt on Mar 10, 2014 14:09:27 GMT -5
My take on the carports issue is that the management and board have allowed carports on the properties that the CC&Rs have expired on and are disallowing carports on properties that are still encumbered.
That being said, It might be a good assumption that man-bod admits they know the Red Book is dead for most owners but are not willing to admit that fact to anyone outside their circle. The same circle that we all saw during the Fun Day Parade where the members of the board had their backs to the community to whom they represent.
I suppose time will tell as to what the truth really is about these issue's and the word will travel faster than ever with the World Class Internet that exists in SLR and with the people that have Air Cards both American and Canadians get the real News right here.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 10, 2014 18:06:56 GMT -5
The birdie almost got it right. IT did not issue a "permission slip"; the owner had a casual conversation with IT and believed that it was OK. The conversation was supported by a hand-drawn site/building plan that clearly showed a concrete driveway and house. The house proportion was easily twice the width of the driveway, which ran parallel to the house on the "right" (utility) side. The lot is irregular-shaped like a fat slice of pie. This drawing would lead one to the obvious conclusion that there was a Doublewide on the lot. There were no measurements on the handwritten plan. The site plan was drawn by the contractor and submitted to Polk County Permit Dept and approved. The plan was drawn wrong, indicating a singlewide house. However, the house was permitted in 2005 as a doublewide and is shown as such in the property records. The setbacks on the permit were documented as 5' front and back and interior sides were 2' and 8', which is consistent with the "rules" on setbacks. Here's the best part that the birdie left out. Birdie forgot to tell us about the professionalism of the Manager for SLohA. The 3/4/14 hand-printed "violation" notice begins:
|
|
Disgusted with MANBOD
Guest
|
Post by Disgusted with MANBOD on Mar 10, 2014 18:55:21 GMT -5
Such professionalism (rolling eyeballs with sarcasm) Where is the SLR letterhead paper? "Hey Guys" What the hell? Did they forget the owner's name - The file cabinet or rolodex of owners is mere feet from IT's desk No complete signatures - guess I can start writing IT notes myself on yellow memo paper. Just mind boggling how stupid this makes them look. That thing will be completely laughed at by lawyers and judges.
|
|
|
Post by J Grnt on Mar 10, 2014 20:53:33 GMT -5
Well I suppose I can expect a half sheet of typing paper from DB with some chicken scratching's that he will consider a valid fine and traffic violation ticket for not stopping at the Illegal and not County maintained stop signage !
LMAO !
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Mar 10, 2014 21:12:29 GMT -5
My take on the carports issue is that the management and board have allowed carports on the properties that the CC&Rs have expired on and are disallowing carports on properties that are still encumbered. That being said, It might be a good assumption that man-bod admits they know the Red Book is dead for most owners but are not willing to admit that fact to anyone outside their circle. The same circle that we all saw during the Fun Day Parade where the members of the board had their backs to the community to whom they represent. I suppose time will tell as to what the truth really is about these issue's and the word will travel faster than ever with the World Class Internet that exists in SLR and with the people that have Air Cards both American and Canadians get the real News right here. I believe you are correct here Mr. Grnt; as far as those getting the nod to put up a carport or not; I bet a quick check of all new carport owners' property encumbrances that aren't being harassed by manager/board are in fact, expired.
And yeah, another thing--these board members not only have their backs to the community during the parades but at all other times as well.
Also, a NO TRESPASSING SIGN--both in English and in Spanish has been posted in the window of the house with the new carport on Parson Tom, which the mange and new president are demanding he takes down.
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Mar 10, 2014 21:27:00 GMT -5
Why do I have an intuition that there is a non-declared war on owners going on?
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Mar 10, 2014 21:31:35 GMT -5
If I were the owner of this carport on Parson Tom, I'd ask the manager/board this question:
What is the real reason why I have to take my carport down, (even though I have a permit, and it's built w/in specifications,) and other owners with new carports are being left alone? I'm sure the manager/board will NEVER allude to the fact that this house on P.T. is still encumbered, whereas other carports built recently are most likely on unencumbered properties.
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Mar 10, 2014 23:35:57 GMT -5
It is really hard to imagine a valid reason for telling an owner to take down a carport. Seems just plain mean to me. Whatever the reason, I wouldn't tolerate the bullying by this out-of-control "manager". Looks like lawyers will be having a field day in SLR if this keeps up with carports and homes.
There are supposedly 4 people "waiting" to put carports in who put down money and have contracts. I will follow this and check titles to see if there is any pattern to who gets hassled.
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Mar 11, 2014 0:01:16 GMT -5
Here is how the lot looks. Note that the "layer" boundary is just approximate and is not a surveyed boundary. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by J Grnt on Mar 11, 2014 11:51:09 GMT -5
Why do I have an intuition that there is a non-declared war on owners going on? Could it be the harassment and stalking of my wife while walking our K9 at night as admitted by former bod pres. KL? Or the actions of B.E. in the security van who intentionally ran my wife off the road and said "that is what I was instructed to do"? Or the manager telling me I can not have my K9 in my golf cart on un restricted common property? Or the vandalism twice to our RV to the sum of $1000 ? Or the removal of my adapter cord to my RV and the disconnect of the outlet in the storage lot by maintenance ? Or the unfounded & unproven claims of me not picking up after my K9 ? Or the continuing attack on me from director DB ? (on digital Disc and viewable upon request) Or the hand written hate letter to me because my wife witnessed the vicious dog mauling by an employee's dog on common prop.? Or the letter from MK on SLR letterhead telling us to move out of SLR? Or the sheet metal screw placed under the right front tire of my wife's car while parked in our driveway? Or the verbal intimidation attempt to me by maint. foreman on the street in SLR? All these things are true and we have numerous PCSD case numbers . These things have been done to us but there are also others that have had large lag bolts placed under a woman's truck tire in her driveway (like the ones from the old wooden fence that was removed from bath house #2) .
I would say your Intuition is right on the money.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 22, 2014 17:32:23 GMT -5
Owner's contractor re-submitted the original erroneous site plan and carport specs to Polk County and was given a corrected County building permit for the carport plan, without any construction or siting modification from the original plan.
After some research, it was determined that there are only 2 lots other than the Parson Tom lot with the "perfect storm" of characteristics which gives Management such a fit: 1-the lots are oversized and irregular-shaped corner lots, 2- the lots have doublewides on them and 3-the lots have insufficient (or no) frontage area for parking and thus have side driveways (or, in one case--a rear driveway).
Wouldn't you think the board could give a variance for these three lots? THREE lots.
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Mar 22, 2014 17:44:46 GMT -5
Owner's contractor re-submitted the original erroneous site plan and carport specs to Polk County and was given a corrected County building permit for the carport plan, without any construction or siting modification from the original plan. After some research, it was determined that there are only 2 lots other than the Parson Tom lot with the "perfect storm" of characteristics which gives Management such a fit: 1-the lots are oversized and irregular-shaped corner lots, 2- the lots have doublewides on them and 3-the lots have insufficient (or no) frontage area for parking and thus have side driveways (or, in one case--a rear driveway). Wouldn't you think the board could give a variance for these three lots? THREE lots. Yes, it should, after all, look at all the places in SLR that have basements; surely there was a variance of some sort given to these owners.
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Mar 23, 2014 17:11:33 GMT -5
Two more carports in--they sure do look nice! Great job, Owners! I checked one of them to see if the Anon Environmentalist's permission slip theory held and it did on the one that I checked--the covenants expired back in 2008 and the owner bought the parcel without covenants! (I forgot to note the lot number on the other one and didn't check it.) Attachment Deleted Attachment DeletedThese are so attractive that it is hard to believe that there would ever have been objections to them!
|
|
jwa
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by jwa on Mar 23, 2014 21:32:03 GMT -5
I wonder if Polk Co. still allows RV Ports. I may have to make some phone calls on Monday.
|
|
gusto
Addict
"A Friend of Bill W."
Posts: 117
|
Post by gusto on Mar 23, 2014 22:51:52 GMT -5
jwa, What do you think this is, some kind of RV Resort? This is not a Outdoors RV Resort. This is S-bag Lake Resort, home of the 600 plus Manufactured Homes.
|
|