|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 14, 2015 17:00:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Jan 15, 2015 0:38:16 GMT -5
One Board Member declined to accept the invitation to The Town H all Meeting. He threw the envelope containing his invitation out in his yard. He stated he only accepts invitations/mail delivered to the office, or personally hand delivered to him. I find that a little strange, since he has a nice metal mail box with a lid, placed next to the entrance door at his residents on 47 ST.
I did do my kind deed for the day, I picked up the envelope, he had tossed on the lawn. He seemed to be angry about something. Chrls Schltz, I sure hope you have a better day on Thursday. JA 16 RC.
Most Residents we talked to, seemed to be hungry for information, they do not like being in the dark about very important issues in SLohA. They were "Thankful" for having "The Town H all Meeting" about what it means when Covenants (CC&R's) expire by MRTA. (Marketable Record Title Act)
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 15, 2015 7:39:07 GMT -5
ATTENTION:
The directions to the MRTA Town H all meeting are: SR60 East toward Vero Beach which will take you past Lake Wales. You will pass an orange processing plant and then see an entrance sign on the left side of the road under the tall communications tower. The Administrative office address for your GPS is 499 S-bag Lake Rd. You must register at the office; I will pre-authorize you if you let me know you will be here. The office will direct you to the clubhouse which is on S-bag Trail (the main boulevard and an extension of S-bag Lake Rd)
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 26, 2015 2:09:56 GMT -5
Cross-posted from Board: Lawsuit #2/Thread: Progress of ...
Lra posted:
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 26, 2015 3:04:06 GMT -5
Invitation to Owner NorleeDee Brnd
There was some disagreement expressed by owners regarding the meeting moderator’s decision to deny mic time to NorleeDee Brnd, who is on the board of directors. Arguments “for” or “against” this decision can certainly be made. He IS a homeowner and meeting guidelines stated that questions would be limited to homeowners. However, there were several overriding considerations that went into this decision in the heat of the moment.
Not the least of those decisions was that it was NorleeDee Brnd—along with the other board members—that placed owners in the position of independently organizing a seminar and paying a lawyer to get basic information about a serious association business problem in the first place! Is it “fair” to take away time from information-hungry owners who have suffered with the exclusionary and secretive treatment by this board for almost 2 years?
The short answer was NO—NorleeDee Brnd has had a Team of Lawyers for almost 2 years to answer his questions! His status as an owner was considered in light of his privileged position as a director who already had exclusive access to many, many lawyers! I totally support the decision.
When denied the opportunity to ask his question, Mr. Brnd and his group picked up their marbles in a show of childish tantrum and left the meeting. (So much for problem-solving creativity and adaptability of the BOD...)
Certain other considerations were, of course, made such as:
1-NorleeDee Brnd is widely thought to be a loose cannon, e.g. has engaged in curious ramblings in BOD meetings about the coming of martians and meteors to S-bag and, most recently, equated cleaning of floor tiles with funding repair and replacement of KCNet's communications towers. Moderator declined to risk disruption of the meeting with such irrational musings.
2-opening the door to ALL the directors asking questions, monopolizing time and directing information away from the issues of interest to the owners, who had been given NO information about MRTA by Mr. Brnd!
In retrospect, Mr. Brnd could have been invited to write his question down to be addressed from the podium. So--Mr NorleeDee Brnd--you are invited to post your question on this forum and it will be submitted to Mr Frd O’Neal, Esq. who will provide a written answer to be published here.
This attorney contact time is billable and will be paid by S-bag Neighbor Assistance Project.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 26, 2015 16:27:04 GMT -5
Here is the audio from the meeting. It begins with a sentence or two missing since Ms. Admin was scurrying off St age to her seat after the introduction and started the recording a little late. MRTA Seminar 1/25/2015The meeting audio is about 1 1/2 hours. A Q & A will be posted a little later about the issues.  Here are a couple pics; it was a packed house and chairs were pulled out of storage to accommodate the unanticipated numbers. We underestimated the attendance and did not have sufficient handouts for all; but will post the links to all the handouts on this forum or, folks can stop by 66SS for a paper copy since that is where the Print Shop is set up!  People were even sitting in the H allways. There were eventually about a dozen people sitting in this H allway. BTW the Polk County Sheriff made a presence on the property subsequent to rumblings about planned meeting disruptions. This was mentioned by Gngr in her Opening Remarks. At our request, Polk County Sheriff kindly provided a reassuring presence at the meeting site entrance. Fortunately, everyone was apparently seeking facts and information and there was no disruption. I spoke to several people after the meeting and I'll post two of those post-meeting interviews separately, since both conversations were relevant to the lawsuit. |
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on Jan 26, 2015 23:51:58 GMT -5
First of all, thank you S u e for posting an audio recording online. Unfortunately, I am stuck in Wisconsin this winter and I was unable to attend this very important informational meeting.
Having listened to Attorney O'N eel (Attny)'s comments on the effects of MRTA, I have some questions. If the restrictions imposed by SLohA's covenants are effectively no longer enforceble due to the 30 year expiration clause, how does that affect land uses?
To use an extreme example, would a property owner in S-bag now be able to set up an auto repair garage on his property? On the other hand, from a zoning perspective, S-bag is a Planned Unit Development (PUD). PUD zoning allows the developer to establish mixed land uses. However, the specific location of these permitted land uses (single family, multi-family, retail, etc) within the PUD must be defined at the time the development plan is submitted to the local planning department for review and approval. As Attorney O'N eel (Attny) pointed out governmental controls on land use such as easements, are not affected by MRTA. As such, since the local planning department's approval of the land uses incorporated in the development plan of the PUD constitutes - in effect - quasi-zoning, wouldn't the restrictions on commercial activity within S-bag remain in effect?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 27, 2015 5:29:01 GMT -5
Here is D Brnd's reply to my invitation to submit his MRTA question to the forum so it could be addressed by the Guest Attorney Mr. O'N eel (Attny).
This further underscores the wisdom of Ms. Astn's decision to NOT ALLOW Mr. Brnd to speak. He apparently is fixated on irrelevant, "He said, She said" and aged issues that most of us have forgotten about and moved on to more important activities.
Didn't you have a MRTA question on your mind, D? Did you forget? Maybe it wasn't that important? The invitation remains open.
|
|
|
|
Post by courious on Jan 27, 2015 13:50:30 GMT -5
After Sunday's meeting, my wife and I are pulling our property off the market. There is just too much liability in Title transference here. We don't want to be sued.
Does anyone have any idea how look this who affair is going to take?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 27, 2015 14:13:28 GMT -5
Wish it were something that had a definable end but the Board doesn't want it to stop. They want to prolong this as long as possible. If you need to sell, get yourself a good attorney to limit the possibility of unpleasant blowback down the line.
I am going to continue to try to sell and am confident that Frd O'N eel (Attny) can protect me. Full disclosure in writing is so critically important in a real estate transaction in S-bag right now. The Board is doing nothing to help owners protect themselves from unwittingly entering into what might be deemed a fraudulent transaction in the future. They are simply prolonging the misery for the benefit of the privileged. THAT is why I asked Frd to specifically address this issue in the MRTA Seminar.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 27, 2015 16:02:56 GMT -5
jimherbst posted:
Two items, SLohA never had any enforcement authority granted in the Covenants except to take someone to court to get a judgement for damages or assessments. Secondly, land use is totally subject to the superior law of Polk County Land Use Commission.
True this is one of the 7 exceptions listed in FS712 that don't get MRTA'd out.
Yes, that was unequivocably stated during the meeting with Land Planning and Code Enforcement in Bartow on Jan 9, 2015. That is the nature of the worst of the complaints i.e. the violation of allowable businesses that can be conducted from the subdivision under the PUD. If determined to be in violation of the PUD, the violator can apply for a Level 3 Comprehensive Land Use Review--which is so comprehensive and broad in scope that it is nearly like starting over a new development. To compare, new subdivisions by Developers are subject to the Top Level 4 Review.
Signed,
"Snap, Crackle POP!"
|
|
