Post by Admin on Jan 11, 2015 12:57:18 GMT -5
Here are the notes and followup of the meeting held in Bartow on Jan 9, 2015 which were sent to Polk County:
Followup Meeting Jan 9, 2015 S-bag Owners
Sherry, by this email to you, I am summarizing and following up the matters discussed during the meeting.
Owners requested permission to record the proceedings but not all in attendance felt comfortable with that, so these notes are the "best recollection". Please let me know if I got something wrong.
The attorney representing owners, Ms. Bar bra St age, Esq., could not clear her calendar to be present for the meeting today. However, she is presently actively involved and has filed a claim against the Association's insurance company for damages associated with the Board's neglect to uphold Covenants. Previously, the Association participated in a mediation on the breach of Covenants with Attorney St age and client Ath at which no agreement was reached.
There was no one in attendance from either SLohA or KCNet. The Polk County participants did not seem surprised so it appeared that a change had been previously communicated that the Owners were unaware of.
It was stated that Mr. St aib claims exemption from the county's building and zoning requirements by virtue of FCC regulations. Sherry stated categorically "No".
It is my understanding that there are THREE complaint cases cited; however, I am only aware of two--CE14-6767 and CE14-3504. Could you give me the 3rd Case number that I am missing so I can request the copy of Citation Summary from the Special Magistrate?
It was mentioned to Eric that the "contact person" on record with the county had long since been gone. The contact person for the Association (only) is Melonknee Kreeow, CAM, employed by Management Company, Stmbg Ixx Inc. She has no known connection with KCNet.
The question was posed as to what Polk County protection the property owners in S-bag possessed under the subdivision plat. This question was tabled pending Eric's verification of the status of S-bag's PUD.
It was stated that S-bag's legal status has changed from HOA to not-for-profit corporation only due to expiration of CC&R's by operation of MRTA. Below is a cut 'n paste of the Official Minutes of the Board Meeting announcing the initiation of Revitalization of Covenants due to expiration:
It is our understanding that two of the towers are under the 50' threshold (499 and St aib) and require only a building permit. The other 3 towers are above 50' and require both building permits and a C3 application and review to be submitted to the Land Planning Commission. The application is necessary to operate the business on properly-zoned land. Currently, their presence and purpose is in violation of the Home Occupation ordinance.
Pursuant to and expanding Shauna's question, this will verify that the only towers present in 2009 were the Lake Wales Wireless's tower on the Admin office at 499 S-bag Lake Rd and the ham radio tower on Mr. St aib's residence. In the 2nd quarter of 2010, Lake Wales Wireless closed up shop and Mr. St aib removed the old "junker" equipment at 499 and erected a replacement. He went "live" with in-park only internet in August 2010. It is theorized that the bulk cost of doing business on such a sm all scale was untenable and caused St aib to seek additional revenue opportunity by attempting twice to obtain Owner agreement to provide mandatory park-wide internet service for a cost of $10/mo. The vote failed in 2011 and was attempted a second time in 2013; this was the "straw that broke the camel's back". The Board attempted, on KCNet's behalf, to place the cost of mandatory internet service as part of the assessment fee, citing specious statutory authority. Failure to pay could result in lien/foreclosure. This was the start of general Owner alarm about the towers which had quietly sprung up in 2012, along with unauthorized use of Owner funds/employees and exclusionary use of common buildings to house proprietary equipment belonging to KCN. The tall communications towers were erected to service subscribers miles outside the community and space has been leased to third parties such as ATT & Verizon. St aib has stated he has plans to expand the service area-wide as a bulk provider to subdivisions and eventually, throughout Florida and possibly beyond. This is the link to the areas he currently services:
KCNet Service Areas
Pursuant to and expanding Hank's question about the objection of owners to these towers ie "is it the towers or the antennas?". Generally, it was agreed by the owners in attendance that it was hard to separate the two structures; rather, it is the unsuitability of commercial business and associated eyesore equipment in our lake/wildlife park-like community that is the primary objection. Second objection was St aib's attempt, through the cooperation of our Board of Directors/Management Company, to compel owners to pay for internet subscription service, with the threat of lien/foreclosure if payment were withheld. Third, Owners rely on our Covenants, which promise that property cannot be used for commercial purposes, and the assurance of the PUD land use as residential only. Fourth objection is use of Owner resources (money, employees) to support the private enterprise, the premises liability and lack of indemnification from the tower owner, St aib. (Board is currently asking Owners to ratify a budget for tower maintenance). Fifth is disruption of quiet, peaceful enjoyment of park and streets littered with contractor and delivery trucks, along with the unfettered access via gate passes, of contractors to and from the heretofore secure property.
It was mentioned that it had been casually observed within the park that the cable wires stabilizing the tower at Bathhouse #2 was encroaching on the lot adjacent to the southeast. This is unsubstantiated.
Attached a photo of the cooler and exposed cables in the Storage Lot that was referred to with regard to Association liability.
Followup re the 6th "involved" location: Attached is a photo of this location. There are no towers but masts, dishes and antennas (repeaters) on a residential home at the very highest point in S-bag. The residence is lot 3 blk 17 on S-bag Trail Parcel Details: 28-30-01-939010-017030. The owner of the residence hosting the equipment is Norley NorleeDee Brnd, who is one of the Board Directors but denies involvement in KCN/St aib's business.
Finally, Hank said that the investigation would have to be "continued" and that the process would be quite lengthy and patience would be required. I understood that because of the "continuance" there would be no public hearing on Jan 15th and the only action taken on that date would be "Continuance". Sherry could you please verify my understanding as we did have several Owners "in waiting" for the public hearing on the 15th?
Followup Meeting Jan 9, 2015 S-bag Owners
Sherry, by this email to you, I am summarizing and following up the matters discussed during the meeting.
Owners requested permission to record the proceedings but not all in attendance felt comfortable with that, so these notes are the "best recollection". Please let me know if I got something wrong.
The attorney representing owners, Ms. Bar bra St age, Esq., could not clear her calendar to be present for the meeting today. However, she is presently actively involved and has filed a claim against the Association's insurance company for damages associated with the Board's neglect to uphold Covenants. Previously, the Association participated in a mediation on the breach of Covenants with Attorney St age and client Ath at which no agreement was reached.
There was no one in attendance from either SLohA or KCNet. The Polk County participants did not seem surprised so it appeared that a change had been previously communicated that the Owners were unaware of.
It was stated that Mr. St aib claims exemption from the county's building and zoning requirements by virtue of FCC regulations. Sherry stated categorically "No".
It is my understanding that there are THREE complaint cases cited; however, I am only aware of two--CE14-6767 and CE14-3504. Could you give me the 3rd Case number that I am missing so I can request the copy of Citation Summary from the Special Magistrate?
It was mentioned to Eric that the "contact person" on record with the county had long since been gone. The contact person for the Association (only) is Melonknee Kreeow, CAM, employed by Management Company, Stmbg Ixx Inc. She has no known connection with KCNet.
The question was posed as to what Polk County protection the property owners in S-bag possessed under the subdivision plat. This question was tabled pending Eric's verification of the status of S-bag's PUD.
It was stated that S-bag's legal status has changed from HOA to not-for-profit corporation only due to expiration of CC&R's by operation of MRTA. Below is a cut 'n paste of the Official Minutes of the Board Meeting announcing the initiation of Revitalization of Covenants due to expiration:
December 17, 2014 President Peet Brdun's Report: Under advisement of the SLohA attorney's, we the Board of Directors are in the process of Revitalization of our Covenants. There will be no changes to the Rules/Regulations just renewing them as they exist.
It is our understanding that two of the towers are under the 50' threshold (499 and St aib) and require only a building permit. The other 3 towers are above 50' and require both building permits and a C3 application and review to be submitted to the Land Planning Commission. The application is necessary to operate the business on properly-zoned land. Currently, their presence and purpose is in violation of the Home Occupation ordinance.
Pursuant to and expanding Shauna's question, this will verify that the only towers present in 2009 were the Lake Wales Wireless's tower on the Admin office at 499 S-bag Lake Rd and the ham radio tower on Mr. St aib's residence. In the 2nd quarter of 2010, Lake Wales Wireless closed up shop and Mr. St aib removed the old "junker" equipment at 499 and erected a replacement. He went "live" with in-park only internet in August 2010. It is theorized that the bulk cost of doing business on such a sm all scale was untenable and caused St aib to seek additional revenue opportunity by attempting twice to obtain Owner agreement to provide mandatory park-wide internet service for a cost of $10/mo. The vote failed in 2011 and was attempted a second time in 2013; this was the "straw that broke the camel's back". The Board attempted, on KCNet's behalf, to place the cost of mandatory internet service as part of the assessment fee, citing specious statutory authority. Failure to pay could result in lien/foreclosure. This was the start of general Owner alarm about the towers which had quietly sprung up in 2012, along with unauthorized use of Owner funds/employees and exclusionary use of common buildings to house proprietary equipment belonging to KCN. The tall communications towers were erected to service subscribers miles outside the community and space has been leased to third parties such as ATT & Verizon. St aib has stated he has plans to expand the service area-wide as a bulk provider to subdivisions and eventually, throughout Florida and possibly beyond. This is the link to the areas he currently services:
KCNet Service Areas
Pursuant to and expanding Hank's question about the objection of owners to these towers ie "is it the towers or the antennas?". Generally, it was agreed by the owners in attendance that it was hard to separate the two structures; rather, it is the unsuitability of commercial business and associated eyesore equipment in our lake/wildlife park-like community that is the primary objection. Second objection was St aib's attempt, through the cooperation of our Board of Directors/Management Company, to compel owners to pay for internet subscription service, with the threat of lien/foreclosure if payment were withheld. Third, Owners rely on our Covenants, which promise that property cannot be used for commercial purposes, and the assurance of the PUD land use as residential only. Fourth objection is use of Owner resources (money, employees) to support the private enterprise, the premises liability and lack of indemnification from the tower owner, St aib. (Board is currently asking Owners to ratify a budget for tower maintenance). Fifth is disruption of quiet, peaceful enjoyment of park and streets littered with contractor and delivery trucks, along with the unfettered access via gate passes, of contractors to and from the heretofore secure property.
It was mentioned that it had been casually observed within the park that the cable wires stabilizing the tower at Bathhouse #2 was encroaching on the lot adjacent to the southeast. This is unsubstantiated.
Attached a photo of the cooler and exposed cables in the Storage Lot that was referred to with regard to Association liability.
Followup re the 6th "involved" location: Attached is a photo of this location. There are no towers but masts, dishes and antennas (repeaters) on a residential home at the very highest point in S-bag. The residence is lot 3 blk 17 on S-bag Trail Parcel Details: 28-30-01-939010-017030. The owner of the residence hosting the equipment is Norley NorleeDee Brnd, who is one of the Board Directors but denies involvement in KCN/St aib's business.
Finally, Hank said that the investigation would have to be "continued" and that the process would be quite lengthy and patience would be required. I understood that because of the "continuance" there would be no public hearing on Jan 15th and the only action taken on that date would be "Continuance". Sherry could you please verify my understanding as we did have several Owners "in waiting" for the public hearing on the 15th?
