|
|
Post by Admin on May 7, 2015 18:34:59 GMT -5
There are multiple code and zoning violations pending against SLohA and Kay c Net. Polk County has scheduled public hearings on June 3 at 9am in Bartow. More details will follow. Attachment DeletedNow, in addition to ugly tall towers scarring our park-like environment, was have flaming hot pink violation signs all over the place for the next month. Everyone is encouraged to attend the hearing to express their opinion. Transportation will be provided. Email Bar braSt agecoach . As a reminder of the visual degradation of our neighborhood, here are some pics. Note that the stab's have their own personal flaming hot pink sign. Attachment Deleted Attachment Deleted Attachment Deleted Attachment DeletedInternet Bb received his own personal violation for having an allegedly non-conforming home occupation; the size and proliferation of this business allegedly does not fall into the constraints of home businesses such as lawn mowing and such. More photos to follow... |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 7, 2015 18:51:47 GMT -5
Here are the lovely structures in our new tennis courts. Note the Poles were recently rebuilt to the tune of around $8000 for engineering and construction. See the Before and After. Also note that the old poles that were removed were thrown down in the Maintenance area and it is shocking to see how little concrete support material adhered to the poles. Attachment Deleted Attachment Deleted Attachment Deleted Attachment Deleted BEFORE AFTER Skinny Poles & Weeny Support |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 7, 2015 20:53:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 7, 2015 20:55:34 GMT -5
|
|
gusto
Addict
"A Friend of Bill W."
Posts: 117
|
Post by gusto on May 7, 2015 22:33:27 GMT -5
It looks like the same poor construction never ends. The first 3 post to secure the tennis court tower may have had 2 bags of gravel mix concrete around each post. Plus I do believe 2 of the post nearest the Trail, were placed in back fill dirt. Not Good!
Some Snowbird Baggers are going to miss these Polk Co. Hearings. I would think K.L. will hang around to attend.
My hope is the Hearing will be recorded and a video maybe available also. I believe some of Polk Co. Hearing are on video.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 8, 2015 7:57:14 GMT -5
By way of clarification, this hearing is before the Land Development Code Dept. I am seeking more information and will post more details when they become available.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 8, 2015 8:02:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Robbero on May 8, 2015 8:21:20 GMT -5
Thank you S u e Tg and Jm Ath for the pink signs
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 8, 2015 10:37:10 GMT -5
Robbero posted:
Robbero -you're very welcome. We have worked hard to resolve the issues related to the presence of the KCNet business housing equipment and commercial enterprise on SLR common property--contrary to the Covenants-- so that Owners' property rights are protected. The pink signs are visible, albeit temporarily irritating, evidence of the attention and perseverence of a group of owners represented by us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2015 21:41:27 GMT -5
Yet, another example of our leaders being part of the problem, encouraging this Commercial Enterprise (Kay c-Ntwerk) to get a e-legal foot hold in our community.
So now again the residents will have to pay (with their money) to get this mess straighten out. All because our Board Members not doing the right thing. Plus 2 or 3 self serving individuals abusing their power. Also hiring Attorneys, but not taking their advise seriously, again wasting your money. Will it ever end?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 13, 2015 9:56:41 GMT -5
Reposted from Manager's Report at KK: I have been in touch with the principle case planner for this change in S-bag's PUD to validate and get additional information. I have learned much new information; first, the current towers are proposed to be much higher than currently existing in some locations and that the information given at KK is in error. The hearing is about a proposed change in land use of S-bag from its current RESIDENTAL to a mixed use PUD which would permit conduct of commercial activity--and NOT about permits. The permit issue is separate and cannot be addressed until the land use question is settled.Letters were mailed out by the county yesterday. An Official Records Request has been submitted to the Board to further awareness of an expense of $1800 recently remitted to Polk County with a "land use" notation. Further public information requests are also pending to receive all available information related to the operation of KCNet on S-bag owners' private property. Finally, some may like to see that this "is a service offered to the community as a whole", but everyone should be aware that this business has trespassed on SLohA common property in violation of SLohA Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions on the property--which forbids the conduct of commercial businesses being run in the park. It also built commercial equipment without permits in violation of Polk County laws. There are currently 3 Polk County citations pending against KCNet and SLohA. Additionally, approximately 40 concerned owners have contributed toward the costs of legal consultation and formal mediation of the presence of the business being conducted inside our gates and have engaged an attorney to assist with a lawful resolution. Here are photos and notes provided by Polk County which indicate that many towers are intended to be significantly increased in height; presumably to better service its subscribing customers OUTSIDE of S-bag. Ultimately, the owners INSIDE S-bag will be paying the hidden and unknown costs of operating this private business from property owned by each one of us. Attachment Deleted Attachment Deleted Attachment Deleted Attachment Deleted Attachment DeletedUnregistered Guests: Use Username 'saddleviewer' and password '123abc' to enlarge and download. These will be appended to the following post in a pdf version. |
|
|
|
Post by courious on May 13, 2015 10:10:48 GMT -5
Reposted from Manager's Report at KK: I have been in touch with the principle case planner for this change in S-bag's PUD to validate and get additional information. I have learned much new information; first, the current towers are proposed to be much higher than currently existing in some locations and that the information given at KK is in error. The hearing is about a proposed change in land use of S-bag from its current RESIDENTAL to a mixed use PUD which would permit conduct of commercial activity--and NOT about permits. The permit issue is separate and cannot be addressed until the land use question is settled.Letters were mailed out by the county yesterday. An Official Records Request has been submitted to the Board to further awareness of an expense of $1800 recently remitted to Polk County with a "land use" notation. Further public information requests are also pending to receive all available information related to the operation of KCNet on S-bag owners' private property. Finally, some may like to see that this "is a service offered to the community as a whole", but everyone should be aware that this business has trespassed on SLohA common property in violation of SLohA Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions on the property--which forbids the conduct of commercial businesses being run in the park. It also built commercial equipment without permits in violation of Polk County laws. There are currently 3 Polk County citations pending against KCNet and SLohA. Additionally, approximately 40 concerned owners have contributed toward the costs of legal consultation and formal mediation of the presence of the business being conducted inside our gates and have engaged an attorney to assist with a lawful resolution. Here are photos and notes provided by Polk County which indicate that many towers are intended to be significantly increased in height; presumably to better service its subscribing customers OUTSIDE of S-bag. Ultimately, the owners INSIDE S-bag will be paying the hidden and unknown costs of operating this private business from property owned by each one of us. Unregistered Guests: Use Username 'saddleviewer' and password '123abc' to enlarge and download. These will be appended to the following post in a pdf version. Who will be responsible for providing maintenance and insurance on these towers? And why are S-bag residents/owners not allowed to have this critical change put on the ballot and only our Board decide such a major change? Is this the backlash owners get since the Covenants are expired? In that case anyone within S-bag can do what they want to their property with only Polk County approval. SLohA approval is nonexistent. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 13, 2015 10:43:55 GMT -5
courious posted:
|
|
|
|
Post by observer on May 13, 2015 11:07:43 GMT -5
"Oh what a wicked web we weave when we first start to deceive. . . " The current board has unlawful towers in a restricted area and wants to make them taller. It houses an unlawful business that is profiting from all the owner's payments. Last year at this time, I pointed out that it seemed strange so many SLA board members just got new cars ie. Clf Jnsn, Stv Southern, not to mention that spanking new Cadillac of D's. Is somebody getting a kick-back?  Just wondering! |
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on May 13, 2015 20:34:07 GMT -5
The Commercial Internet Operation and the placement of Kay c Nets Towers on SLR's common property, plus the repeater antennas on Mr. Norly Dees rooftop, and Kn L (past president) trying to ram the Resort wide internet down ones throat, on two separate occasions, with a flawed dual Ballot. That action has had a bad smell from the get go.
S-bag Lake Resort needs to have a Forensic Audit, to follow the money trail. Our present leaders stated on a resent Records Request, it was not the Managements job to explain how the money flows in and out of our accounts. Our elected Leaders want to keep the members out of the Financial Privileged Loop.
Our Treasurer, Mr. Stv Southlards standard comment at BOD Meetings, is SLR's Financial Operation is in Good Shape... Never mind we just spent nearly $70,000 on a Covenant Violation that did not exist. Now that was a $68,000 expense that was a waste to our community.
So, someone other then the residents of SLR, needs to be responsible for that "Bone-Headed" $68,000 decision to have a Law Suit on a Non-Violation. Can you fix stupid, not with this present bunch...
Again we need to get organized and pool our resources, to retain a Lawyer/Forensic Auditor, we have been lied to on so many different occasions, I simply do not trust some of our BODs anymore.
16 RC
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 19, 2015 8:48:59 GMT -5
CHUG finally enters the conversation on 5/17/2015 under "Current Issues":
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THIS ACTION WAS TAKEN "OUT OF THE SUNSHINE" BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AND NOT PROPERLY "NOTICED" TO MEMBERS.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE WAS NO QUORUM PRESENT THAT THIS ACTION WAS THEREFORE, NOT AUTHORIZED AND IS NULL AND VOID. ( Melonknee and Bb stab are not board directors and have no authority to bind the Association)
I will forward to this information to Polk County as supporting documentation of the absence of "standing" in SLohA application for a land use change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 19, 2015 16:31:11 GMT -5
Stv Suthrd posted on CHUG:
Everyone should be aware that the new location being proposed is the BEACH AREA.
The second area proposed is the Maintenance area. This is unclear but might be a problem of multiple references to the same tower i.e. Wasteplant, Storage Lot, Maintenance towers as all the same existing tower next to the wastewater plant in the storage area.
I will be posting the application documents requesting this change separately.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 29, 2015 8:31:30 GMT -5
Details of Hearing:
All can attend
Location is next to Courthouse in Bartow at the Administration Building on the next block. Parking is adjacent to building.
Address is: 330 W. Church St Bartow
In Building Location: 1st Floor Board Room. Well marked.
Speakers should limit time for comments to 3 minutes.
Speakers should avoid spending excessive angst recounting the chaos of internal affairs in S-bag, which the Land Commission can do nothing about. They are well aware that this is a strongly opposed application.
Land Commission wants to know "human environmental impact" and comment time is best used sticking to that and those matters on the Application (which is posted on this Board). This would be the adverse affect on our property rights, current and future use of leisure amenities, and disruption of a peaceful, rural lifestyle by the ugly presence of steel monoliths occupying every inch of our recreational and open common properties. Property owners situated especially in the beach area (Beaverkill), Silver Doctor, North & South S-bag Trail and possibly Queen may want to address eyesore and degradation of the park-like environment that their homes will be adversely impacted by.
|
|
Just wondering! 
