Post by Admin on Oct 31, 2014 5:35:47 GMT -5
From BOD October 22, 2014 UNOFFICIAL Minutes--Reading of Correspondence by Secretary:
Obviously, the Board met OUTSIDE a Board Meeting as a quorum and decided to Grnt the Owner's request about cutting down "the arborvitaes at 38STN". IF the Board had done their job with a minimum of competence and transparency, the site would have been visited to corroborate the request--and, in that event,--it would have been noted that the problem arborvitae was NOT situated on 38STN property!
First, the overgrown arborvitae is not a tree at all--"it is a very big low-maintenance shrub that can be used as a large hedge or accent". (These bushes are very popular because they are dense and provide a privacy screen. They are fast growing and don't require much maintenance. But, they get HUGE!)
Second, the shrub was NOT situated on 38STN--it is actually well within the property boundary of the parcel adjacent, 36STN.
Third, the Board had NO AUTHORITY to Grnt 38STN permission to enter upon the property of 36STN and cut down another owner's tree! (In reality, the board has no tree-removal authority unless a distressed or dead tree endangers common property).
When learning of this request through the forum, the owner of the shrub--36STN--was in touch in the owner of 38STN. The shrub owner immediately recognized the visibility problem (which had never been communicated directly to the owner by the aggrieved neighbor!) and trimmed it back and stacked it for pickup.
No more visibility problem for either owner!
Attachment Deleted Attachment Deleted
Here my comments:
1. BOD--IF you had done your homework and actually gone out and visualized the situation, you would have noted that the offending bush was clearly on the adjacent property--and if you were unsure--would have contacted the adjacent owner to discuss and come to some kind of agreement. YOU DID NOT DO THAT!
2. BOD-IF you had discussed this request in an open BOD meeting like you are supposed to, other owners would have commented and questioned your "findings" and decision. Someone might have asked "Has anyone done a survey to validate that the tree is within the owner's property line, since it is close to the edge of the road?" YOU DID NOT CONDUCT ASSOCIATION BUSINESS WITH OPENNESS, INTEGRITY AND TRANSPARENCY!
3. NEIGHBOR--Why didn't you contact your neighbor about the tree and work it out?
4. SHRUB OWNER--YOU can be my neighbor anytime!
If owners look to Big Daddy BOD to solve their problems, they are looking in the wrong place! BOD will screw it up and the Association--the MEMBERS--will have to pay the bill to fix it!
#2 Trees Removal-request to cut down arborvitaes 38SBTN which has caused near collisions and has become dangerous. (discussion they are nuisance bushes so BOD decided previously to remove them and owner got permission)
First, the overgrown arborvitae is not a tree at all--"it is a very big low-maintenance shrub that can be used as a large hedge or accent". (These bushes are very popular because they are dense and provide a privacy screen. They are fast growing and don't require much maintenance. But, they get HUGE!)
Second, the shrub was NOT situated on 38STN--it is actually well within the property boundary of the parcel adjacent, 36STN.
Third, the Board had NO AUTHORITY to Grnt 38STN permission to enter upon the property of 36STN and cut down another owner's tree! (In reality, the board has no tree-removal authority unless a distressed or dead tree endangers common property).
When learning of this request through the forum, the owner of the shrub--36STN--was in touch in the owner of 38STN. The shrub owner immediately recognized the visibility problem (which had never been communicated directly to the owner by the aggrieved neighbor!) and trimmed it back and stacked it for pickup.
No more visibility problem for either owner!
Attachment Deleted Attachment Deleted
Here my comments:
1. BOD--IF you had done your homework and actually gone out and visualized the situation, you would have noted that the offending bush was clearly on the adjacent property--and if you were unsure--would have contacted the adjacent owner to discuss and come to some kind of agreement. YOU DID NOT DO THAT!
2. BOD-IF you had discussed this request in an open BOD meeting like you are supposed to, other owners would have commented and questioned your "findings" and decision. Someone might have asked "Has anyone done a survey to validate that the tree is within the owner's property line, since it is close to the edge of the road?" YOU DID NOT CONDUCT ASSOCIATION BUSINESS WITH OPENNESS, INTEGRITY AND TRANSPARENCY!
3. NEIGHBOR--Why didn't you contact your neighbor about the tree and work it out?
4. SHRUB OWNER--YOU can be my neighbor anytime!
If owners look to Big Daddy BOD to solve their problems, they are looking in the wrong place! BOD will screw it up and the Association--the MEMBERS--will have to pay the bill to fix it!