Is there no end?

Truly Unbelievable, our Board of Directors have "Tunnel Vision". If one was to move this Commercial Internet Enterprise to #2 S-bag Trail, it could be a feature picture in SLR's Welcome Brochure on Chugs Site. Hopefully in the near future, this Commercial Enterprise and all of the additional equipment will be dismantled and moved outside of SLohA's Property.

gto--Good point!

pestcontrol--YES, Polk County has been contacted.  And, YES--it is another slap in the face or rather a spit in the face of Polk County and all owners in S-bag.

There was a time when BOD was responsive to owner concerns and at least attempted a collective conversation.  No more.  In general, "all violations of anything" will be directed to the appropriate oversight authority in the future.  We pay taxes for this protection.   All attempts to get the attention of MANBOD to make corrections on the property have been met with hostility and retaliation.  There is no confidence that this MANBOD has the welfare of the owners its represents as a priority.   They are doing things behind our back and it has nothing to do with making S-bag owners more comfortable and secure.   BOD has abandoned its fiduciary duty to Members and Members must now look elsewhere for help and relief.

This is exactly the kind of thing that people try to avoid by buying into an HOA and tolerating the presence of restrictions on property--the degradation of their property value by nearby homes that look like this.  Is anything selling on Grayhackle?  (Oh wait--I'll check to see the past sales on this street and what is for sale now...)

THIS is what our board is sponsoring in S-bag and attempted to get owners' agreement to let them have their way with commercial enterprise in S-bag on last year's ballot.

Commercial business in S-bag...."ya want fries with that?"

This discussion gives me the opportunity to seek some clarification about the nature of the county's ongoing investigation regarding the communication towers. Is this an investigation over possible violations of the zoning code or of the building code? Those are two totally different things. Zoning codes regulate land use (e.g. single-family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, industrial, etc.). Building codes enforce standards of health and safety for all primary and accessory structures. One may be in conformance with the zoning code but still violate the building code because the structure does not meet safety standards (e.g. a communications tower that is insufficiently anchored to withstand high-velocity winds) or because the landowner did not take out the proper building permit.
Can anyone enlighten me about which type of code SLohA and/or Bb St aib allegedly violated? That would be very helpful.

Polk County has acknowledged all inquiries regarding the proliferation of multiple masts/dishes/antennas installed on homes in S-bag (in addition to the communication towers) and will address the matter in the informational meeting scheduled for early January 2015.  Owners are welcome to attend this meeting.  The meeting date, time and place will be announced here as soon as scheduled.  This meeting will be a good learning opportunity for all regarding the county's land planning and managment process.

This Board and Management company and KCN believe they are exempt from reality inside SLR's gates.

And, I concur with you on your opinion of American Towers, a copy of which was provided to the Polk County attorney on this case.

That case was really complicated and gave me a headache.  But I will try to summarize. 

The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 allows you to put up a tower for "personal wireless services" and gives you a "free pass" with regard to local restrictions.  In other words, the Feds trump the county or city.  But, American Tower also raised the height of the tower and installed a bunch of dishes on it for commercial purposes, claiming protection because it provided  "personal wireless services" even though it had lots of antennas and was 400 ft tall and was carrying HDTV signals. 

The ruling was that the structure did not come under the "privilege" of the Telecommunications Act because the primary purpose of the tower was NOT personal wireless service.   Moreover, the purpose of its height was to provide commercial services thereby removing it from the jurisdiction of the Feds.   It was determined that it was not the intention of the law to allow people to circumvent local restrictions by claiming personal wireless service as a secondary use.

Bottom line nutshell:  ."Unfortunately for plaintiff's claim of federal jurisdiction, the zoning limitations set forth in Section 332(c)(7)(B) of Telecommunications Act do not apply in this case; plaintiff simply is not entitled to the protections from local regulation that the Act may provide in other contexts.

stab is also seeking protection of the Telecommunications Act that his towers are under federal jurisdiction and that Polk law doesn't count.  This case clearly says "uh Uh".

Oh crap now you are making me look up stare decisis after my headache...meanie! 

Nov. Board Meeting Agenda, Polk County Health Dept. asking for permission to place a communication radio on SLohA's Tower. This makes my antenna go up..... Muddy the waters even more.

Nov. Board Meeting Agenda, Polk County Health Dept. asking for permission to place a communication radio on SLohA's Tower. This makes my antenna go up..... Muddy the waters even more.

The following is my opinion of the Board's behavior and historical perspective of the problem with regard to SLohA governing documents and Official Records Requests.

This inclusion of this for consideration on the agenda is a shocking, disrespectful and dismissive statement to owners in S-bag.  It says "We don't give rat's a** about you". We are protecting our private investor ahead of your property rights. We will litter the property with 400+ foot towers if necessary to achieve our agenda".

Additionally,  if this passes, it will further "muddy the waters" and cost SLohA even more in legal fees to unwind.

Sadly, it is not surprising. This showdown has been building for years.   Only a few have paid attention to the steady erosion of the lifestyle in Saddebag. The Board's retained attorneys advised the Board to solve this problem and that what they were doing was illegal.  Opposing attorney gave notice at mediation that BOD had the summer to "think it over" before litigation progresses.   Looks like BOD decided to spend SLohA money on legal fees to protect their investor and try to subdue opposition with harassment and intimidation.

I do believe that Polk County Health Dept will conduct "due diligence" and quickly decide not to get caught in the firestorm brewing in this community over the Privileged One's obvious preference for private-party business interests over Owners' contractual interests.   Polk County will learn that:

...SLohA covenants forbid the presence of commercial activity on this property

...Polk County prohibits the operation of commercial activity on residentially-zoned property

...The Developer never conveyed commercial communication tower equipment to the Association in 1977 and this equipment is not owned by the Association

...The Association has no authority to bind Owners with a lease obligation for privately-owned property that is illegally situated on common property

...The Covenants contain no provision for future acquisition of additional common property. FL contract law requires affirmative adoption of 100% of Owners to add an amenity

...Covenants are a contract with Owners and the Association is violating the contract by permitting this privately-owned business to use common property for purposes not intended or described in the Covenants.  In effect, allowing this private business to build and house equipment and operate here is an unconstitutional taking of our property by the Board.

...This board is violating its fiduciary duty to owners in favor of a privately-owned business by failing to uphold the Covenants

...SLohA has violated Polk County Code and Planning Commission laws and has been issued several violations (5 at last count)

...SLohA and Polk County Code Enforcement and Planning Division will conduct a pre-hearing meeting prior to the scheduled public hearings on the violation in January 2015

...Over at least 4 years, Owners have continuously questioned, written and complained to this Board about the trespass of this commercial activity and equipment on SLohA common property--to no avail.

...This board refused to provide information on an Official Records Request for the amount of SLohA funds which have been expended on the business's behalf during the term of the towers' presence on common property

...Owners have funded a legal action with over $4,000 to retain an attorney to rid the community of this equipment and commercial business

...Owners have funded and conducted pre-mediation and formal mediation with the Board to discuss the Board's breach of Covenants

...SLohA-retained attorneys have advised this board that SLohA is in breach of its covenants and must act to bring its conduct into compliance with the Covenants

...Directors have privately admitted to other owners that they know what they are doing is against the law

...Owners have filed a damages claim with SLohA's insurance company (Tower Hill) for damages secondary to the degradation of the community and diversion of SLohA funds to enable the business to situate on common property

...This Board sponsored this business by mandating, without discussion with Owners, an illegal ballot item to change the covenants to permit the board alone to make all future decisions about commercial enterprise on common property

...The board failed to indemnify (protect) the owners against accidents and injury secondary to the presence of towers on common property

...Over the last 4 years, the Board has publicly admitted that it has spent SLohA funds and employee resources and facilities to further the conduct of enterprise on common property

...The Board has attempted twice to force an assessment burden on the Members for property not owned, acquired or legally-maintained by the Association

...The Board has ignored the advice it sought from its own attorney to refrain from attempting to add an assessment fee burden on the Owners for the benefit of this private business.  By ignoring the advice of its attorney, it wasted SLohA funds on legal fees,  invalidated the ballot, failed to ratify the budget and incurred double expense to repeat the ballot

...The Board admits that SLohA is paying the general liability insurance on the communications towers, but the towers are not listed as scheduled "assets"- and there is NO DOCUMENTATION evidencing SLohA ownership

...Owner's attorneys have acquired case law that directly refutes the justification offered by the private business.  The Board has never validated this with a legal expert.

...This board has met "out of the sunshine" to conduct business with the privately-owned enterprise without knowledge and consent of Owners.

Notwithstanding the certainty that Polk County will sure withdraw its application to install equipment on our property under the multiple litigious conditions outlined above, Members can CANCEL any agreement entered into by this board at subsequent meeting with a simple majority vote.  (The November agenda is for motion on the proposal only--not a contract.  The Board must disclose the Member Cancellation option to Polk County if and when a contract is drawn.)

I hope this private business has a LOT OF MONEY to mount defenses for all the directors and others involved in this scheme.  I doubt that the mood at Tower Hill will be receptive to extending D & O coverage after these lawsuits and the damage claim resolves.