|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 10, 2014 8:01:49 GMT -5
Good News! The carport is completed and the County has signed off and approved the structure! Three of Bb's neighbors wrote letters to the Board in support of the carport--urging the Board to approve a variance for his unusual lot configuration and stating that it was an attractive structure and added to the desirability of the neighborhood. I have copies of those letters; they should be read at the next BOD meeting--whenever they decide one is necessary.
The Petition for a Rule Change urging revokation (vacating) of several Rules and replacing those rules with Polk County Code Permits is going slowly, but surely. By the time the Petition was ready to go--so were most Owners! However, there is no time limitation on getting signatures on the Petition. The Petition only tells the BOD "We should put the new rule on the Ballot for owners to vote on".
|
|
|
|
Post by Lra on Apr 16, 2014 4:55:22 GMT -5
A "NO TRESPASSING" sign on Parson Tom must be taken down? What about the "NO TRESPASSING" sign at a lot (on the tree) at S-bag Trail North that has been up there for about a year? Double standard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Father Justice on Apr 16, 2014 6:02:30 GMT -5
A "NO TRESPASSING" sign on Parson Tom must be taken down? What about the "NO TRESPASSING" sign at a lot (on the tree) at S-bag Trail North that has been up there for about a year? Double standard. My new sign reads "I DONT CALL 911" ! |
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on May 2, 2014 14:48:01 GMT -5
Imagine living in a world where someone accuses you of something--then engages their attorney to write a letter to you..and Then...sends you an invoice for cost of communicating their unfounded accusation!
Yes--this was reported today by the recipient!
In the world I am living in, when you have a problem you wish to communicate--and you decide to hire an attorney to represent your grievance--YOU pay your attorney. In the world I live in, when the problem is eventually sorted out by private agreement or by the judicial system, the court/judge has the only discretion to order who pays what in attorney fees and costs.
Is MANBOD's attorney inhabiting a universe unique to SLohA by billing the third party--who has not been adjudicated guilty of anything-- for the costs his client generated? Is this just a simple case of harassment and trying to run up bills for owners who get attorneys to protect themselves from abuse and predation by SLohA?
If we are in a New Age and I missed the memo, I will immediately invoice SLohA to reimburse me for the professional fees that I have paid so far and instruct my attorney, Frd O'N eal, to send all future invoices to SLohA.
|
|
|
|
Post by slanty on May 2, 2014 19:01:29 GMT -5
I know the answer. It's one of those new hidden rules that were just filed in Polk County. Didn't you see it? Must be an error that it was left out. But you are still going to be held accountable for it even if you can't find the rule. Remember,it's our dictatorial style instituted here at SLohA and YOU must comply.
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on May 3, 2014 10:38:21 GMT -5
I know the answer. It's one of those new hidden rules that were just filed in Polk County. Didn't you see it? Must be an error that it was left out. But you are still going to be held accountable for it even if you can't find the rule. Remember,it's our dictatorial style instituted here at SLohA and YOU must comply. What "rule" are you talking about here?
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on May 3, 2014 10:50:03 GMT -5
Imagine living in a world where someone accuses you of something--then engages their attorney to write a letter to you..and Then...sends you an invoice for cost of communicating their unfounded accusation! Yes--this was reported today by the recipient! In the world I am living in, when you have a problem you wish to communicate--and you decide to hire an attorney to represent your grievance--YOU pay your attorney. In the world I live in, when the problem is eventually sorted out by private agreement or by the judicial system, the court/judge has the only discretion to order who pays what in attorney fees and costs. Is MANBOD's attorney inhabiting a universe unique to SLohA by billing the third party--who has not been adjudicated guilty of anything-- for the costs his client generated? Is this just a simple case of harassment and trying to run up bills for owners who get attorneys to protect themselves from abuse and predation by SLohA? If we are in a New Age and I missed the memo, I will immediately invoice SLohA to reimburse me for the professional fees that I have paid so far and instruct my attorney, Frd O'N eal, to send all future invoices to SLohA. What has MANBOD accused now? If it's in letter format, not bona fide legal complaint on legal pleading paper, it's nothing but a load of crap--just like the idiot(s) that filed it.
It's just harassment to get you fired up--they seem to think they're good at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on May 3, 2014 11:11:28 GMT -5
Attempted carport enforcement. And you are right it is just letter-litter mailed expensively wasting owner money
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on May 4, 2014 9:22:15 GMT -5
Obviously, these attorneys are the bottom-feeders; looking for anyway they can to make a buck
It sounds like they can't even follow the simple process of filing a complaint by using simple, proper legal protocols.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 5, 2014 9:49:44 GMT -5
Attachment DeletedFrom Polk County Variance Application 14-72 for 21 Blue Quill Circle: The placement of this carport would not meet SLohA set-back standards.Even if the County approved this variance, the structure would be totally contrary to SLohA Rule--not to mention possibly encroaching on the neighbors property: A Public Hearing is scheduled for 9/26/14. The public is invited but be sure to phone the dept (534-6084) first to make sure of the date and time; these hearings can be rescheduled at the last minute. I wonder if SLohA intends to S u e the Calkin's if they put up their carport according to Polk County building standards (if variance approved) like they did to Bb Lckrn. The only difference would be that Lckrn did not require a variance. Attachment DeletedAccording to Polk County records, this is a gabled, shingled-roof, two story WOOD FRAME structure with 1416 sq ft under roof. This property's SLohA Covenant's were preserved by personal deed in 1990 and remains encumbered by SLohA until 2020. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney or a professional title searcher; the interpretations of MRTA expiration on titles 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2014 12:04:33 GMT -5
Actually, the date for the hearing on that big pink sign is 9/25/2014 at 1:30 p.m.
I don't know if it was changed to the 26th at some point, but the date on the sign does say 9/25/14.
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Sept 5, 2014 12:19:17 GMT -5
I was just wondering if: Is there ever going to be a time where an issue is made of these homes that are over the 1200 sq. ft. allowance that was surreptitiously entered into our new rule book recently? (This home is 1,416 sq. ft.)
The fact remains that there have been homes in here over 1200 sq. ft. for many years, however, it seems as if those owning these homes are mainly board members and/or their friends, so the issue may never even come up.
It just leaves me to wonder still why would they put that square footage limit into the rule book when there have been homes in here well over that area for quite some time now? |
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Sept 5, 2014 13:09:46 GMT -5
sorry got it mixed up with the KCN followup date set by Polk County!
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Sept 5, 2014 13:26:41 GMT -5
I was just wondering if: Is there ever going to be a time where an issue is made of these homes that are over the 1200 sq. ft. allowance that was surreptitiously entered into our new rule book recently? (This home is 1,416 sq. ft.)
The fact remains that there have been homes in here over 1200 sq. ft. for many years, however, it seems as if those owning these homes are mainly board members and/or their friends, so the issue may never even come up.
It just leaves me to wonder still why would they put that square footage limit into the rule book when there have been homes in here well over that area for quite some time now? Q: When will this issue be confronted? Maybe when owners get a bellyful of this MANBOD ignoring a basic reality that is there is NO authority to make rules concerning "manufactured homes and appurtenances" in the Covenants--the CONTRACT. The Covenants speak only to "camping facilities". Thus, Rules can only address "camping facilities". MANBOD will ignore this unpleasant fact as long as Owner's support the fantasy. MANBOD withholds information, skirts the truth, shoves its rules down owners throats, spends SLohA money on lawyers to intimidate owners and hides behind Mamager. One day, Owners will either push back and scream "Enough" or REALITY will be forced on SLohA by the judicial system i.e. the Covenants are expired for 85-90% of parcels in S-bag and the "Board" is no more than a greedy group of windbag bullies. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 27, 2014 15:18:56 GMT -5
Update on Lckrn's carport. The mediation was held in mid-July and Lckrn agreed to remove his carport. There is no more information provided. Here's the photos: Attachment Deleted Attachment Deleted With Carport Carport Removed |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 27, 2014 15:28:45 GMT -5
Here's another example of selective enforcement. This is a board director's carport. Aside from the fact that it is a huge roofed design that dominates the landscape at the top of the ridge, it was done by contractors "after contractor hours". Attachment Deleted Attachment Deleted Attachment Deleted Board Directors Carport Board Director's Contractor Did Members adopt this Rule? construction after hours |
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Oct 26, 2014 6:57:16 GMT -5
So I'm up early at a friend's house that has Verizon FIOS here in Polk County. While channel surfing, I see pics of SLR, I stop and it's the board meeting of Polk county in regards to F ran M ott's easement variance vote for a carport. I guess she goes over some line onto the easement to build it due to her house being near a drainage and the property being on an angle. F ran got up with some guy (I didn't recognize but looked like an SLR owner) and said she understood the conditions for the carport. Then the county asked for those who agree with carport to stand up and talk - nothing. Then they asked for those who oppose - nothing. Carport approved to build on easement WITH THE RISK of what is in the area. I guess I didn't tune in soon enough because I don't know what is meant by RISK. My thoughts were: 1) The possibility that it might be destroyed if EMS needed to get through the area between the houses and it get knocked down 2) It may get flooded due to being in the area of drainage 3) WRATH of the SLR manbod (UGH)
They need to wait for paper work before they can begin and man (with F ran) said they would wait the 30 days, even when the county said they could start the next day with paperwork (I guess getting it from the county instead of it being mailed). The date of the meeting was 10/23/2014 and the tv said replay on the screen. It was the polk county channel on Fios. She(F ran) did have her Engineer and contractor with her. I don't know who the spokesman was, he was dressed nicely and reminded me of a lawyer and he had pics to show the county so I assumed a lawyer type.
I found the whole thing interesting and thought I would share.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 26, 2014 7:51:13 GMT -5
Here is the full content of the televised hearing before the Polk County Value Adjustment Board: Polk County Televised Hearing ChannelThe hearing begins at approximately 2.00.00 and ends at approximately 2.09.00 about 9 minutes later. You have to mouse over the index selector--a little white circle that appears when you place your mouse over it--then hold it and physically move it along the progress bar. You will see the time index change when you move it--release your mouse at 2.00.00 and the hearing will soon begin. The gentlemen who was nicely dressed, like a lawyer, was the Polk County case planner in charge of Fran's request for a variance. The gentleman behind Fran--the one who corrected her testimony--I did not recognize but it was probably her contractor. When Fran was asked if she reviewed the Engineering Report by the Board, she answered "no". That gentlemen immediately bent down to correct her and then she changed her answer and said "Yes". That indicated to me that the gentlemen was VERY familiar with the rules and that the application would otherwise have been continued if she was not familiar with the engineering exceptions noted in the report. The only engineering exception voiced by the County Case manager concerned Drainage. He stated that the structure might need to be removed for drainage reasons at some point in the future. The Board was attempting to secure Fran's awareness and understanding of this "future contingency" and if that was acceptable should this happen, remarking that "this area is prone to that" (ie drainage problems). Of course, there is always a risk if a non-favored owner acts on the approved variance and puts up a carport, but this is very minimal in this case due to the friendship of the Applicant with a BOD director.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 26, 2014 8:13:57 GMT -5
Since I was already on the website, I looked up the Variance on the Cal kins application on Blue Quill. This one was significantly more complex. It was approved by the County with the notation that it was still subject to approval by the Association since the structure would encroach into the setback.
There has been nothing in the BOD Minutes regarding any discussion of this request for a carport and it is unknown if the Calkins' are pursuing this.Polk County Value Adjustment Board HearThe index location for the "Cal kins" variance is 1.14.00 to 1.24.30--about 10 minutes in duration. (Follow the instructions in the previous post on Fran's variance request.) By the way, the person standing with the Applicant WAS the contractor, introduced as G reg She lton. This was the same person who corrected Fran during her testimony. This was a particularly interesting presentation by a new Case Planner who gave a summation of the SLR PUD and why the odd conditions on the property require requests for variances. He also mentioned that there were "2 more similar requests for variances" coming in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Nov 4, 2014 11:14:48 GMT -5
Admin wrote: Attachment DeletedQuestion answered. The carport on 21 BQ is going up. Not a peep heard from the 499 Mamager or the BOD. It is great that the Calkin's are getting their carport. Their carport siting problem points out that there are MANY lots that have odd siting situation--not just side driveways. Should the folks on the lake side not get a carport because their home was set sideways on an RV pad? Should they have to reposition their home? What say you Board, in all your wisdom? The problem with this is, once again, preferential treatment of some owners. The fact of their being "favored volunteers" should not have afforded them what appears to be SELECTIVE TREATMENT by the Board over non-favored owners. This "selectivity" and ultimate inability to properly assess the problem has brought us this point of mindless adherence to rules that are archaic and inapplicable to the current day realities. The result has been a haphazard and irrational approach to the very real problem of building HOMES in a campground designed for RV's. (Stroll down Memory Lane: Let's remember that Bb Lckrn's property violated NO Polk County Building Codes and he obtained a Polk County permit to build HIS carport. HIS carport was situated appropriately on this lot i.e. OVER THE DRIVEWAY and enhanced the beauty and functionality of his home. It encroached on nothing except the egos of the board. His neighbors wrote letters of support when the Board began to persecute him and threatened to S u e.) When the county approved this complicated building variance, they did so with the caution that the owner would have to get the association permission to violate the setback. Here is a 2011 aerial of the lot and it is pretty obvious that a carport built perpendicular to the house would likely encroach into the neighboring setback property. Attachment DeletedDid the Board "approve this variance" when I was wasn't paying attention? Or did the setback move? Or maybe the rule was changed? |
|
