Post by Admin on Jul 18, 2015 9:13:58 GMT -5
The sponsor of the Appeal hand delivered the letter below to Polk County attorney (courtesy copy to Stmbug Ixx Inc) on July 15. The letter was prepared as part of the Appeal for legal review by the attorney advising the Commissioners.
This letter was sent one week after receiving NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT from the Letter of July 8 to SLohA Officers, Stmbug Ixx, stab and Polk County Senior Planner. Only one person responded--Erik Pet erson, Senior Planner who cleared his calendar and offered a choice of 3 days for the requested meeting.
(Editor Note: These Letters contain certain names and words that are automatically changed by the Forum. The original letter did not contain this transformed text)
This is the first letter requesting meeting with all parties on July 8th; there was no acknowledgement from any SLohA agent:
The following is a recent quote from Brnd about including owners in the Land Use Modification:
Who's fooling Who? Brnd has NO intention of talking to Owners about this issue.
This letter was sent one week after receiving NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT from the Letter of July 8 to SLohA Officers, Stmbug Ixx, stab and Polk County Senior Planner. Only one person responded--Erik Pet erson, Senior Planner who cleared his calendar and offered a choice of 3 days for the requested meeting.
(Editor Note: These Letters contain certain names and words that are automatically changed by the Forum. The original letter did not contain this transformed text)
July 15, 2015
Michael Craig
(863) 534-6730
MichaelCraig@polk-county.net
330 W. Church St., Bartow, Florida
Drawer AT01
P.O. Box 9005
Bartow, Florida 33831-9005 RE: 73-08M
S-bag Lake Resort
Dear Mr Craig:
I am appealing to you as Legal Counsel to the Polk County Commissioners, who will be hearing the above-named appeal on August 4th at 1:30pm.
It does appear, unfortunately, that some of the Applicants are unwilling to meet with the Owner that filed the Appeal. I have not yet had my “invitation” letter acknowledged by any of the recipients (copy enclosed) and that we must move forward with legal remedy.
I was told by the President, D Brnd, of SLohA's Board, that he refused to communicate with me in any way, shape or form. This was based on an altercation that occurred over a year ago. I hope that he would place the best interest of SLohA, myself and all of the homeowners in the resort above our personal feelings.
Notwithstanding that, I have sought the opinion of Legal Counsel who is retained by S-bag Neighbor Assistance Project (aka SNAP), FurrRedIck O'N eel (Attny), Esq. Mr. O'N eel (Attny) is retained by SNAP to provide legal consult and assistance of SLohA members when requested.
Mr. O'N eel (Attny)'s opinion of the current status of the Applicants' Land Use Modification request is that it is tantamount to Neighbor #1 seeking a variance from the County for an exclusive land use on Neighbor #2's property.” With regard to the towers, we are talking about easements over the common areas. SLohA is attempting to engage Polk County to Grnt an exclusive use easement of part of the common areas for the multiple towers. For this to be proper, one has to look at the original Grnt of powers to the HOA by the Developer in the original Declarations (there are 3 subdivisions involved). The three (3) Covenants are attached. As you see, there is no Grnt of power to SLohA by the Developer to Grnt exclusive use easements over any of the common property.
I request that the County not Grnt a permission/use modification to SLohA until they have researched whether SLohA has the power in the first place to Grnt an exclusive easement over any common areas to the internet company, Kay c Networks. I would ask that you agree, upon review of the documentation and cases cited, that there is no standing to do so. Without the power to Grnt an exclusive easement over the common area for the tower, SLohA has no standing to seek the County's permission.
Additionally, in the opinion of Mr. O'N eel (Attny), this case seems to be similar to those cited and summarized
below:
In Roth v. Springlake II Homeowners Association, Inc., 533 So.2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), ¾’s of the homeowners in a development approved the homeowners association’s Grnt of exclusive easements on common areas to the owners of certain patio homes in order to allow construction of patio extensions onto the common area. Dissenting homeowners sued. The trial court sided with the homeowners association and the dissenting owners appealed. The appellate court reversed, holding it was necessary to obtain 100% approval of all homeowners in order to allow such a Grnt of easements.
In S&T Anchorage, Inc. v. Lws, 575 So.2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (“S&T Anchorage”), the president of the association deeded away certain waterfront rights on common property. One lot owner objected, arguing the declaration gave no such authority to the association. In siding with the lot owner, the appellate court stated, in part, the following:
"The articles and bylaws [of the Association] must be consistent with the provisions of the superior document, the Declaration. ... The binding Declaration does not Grnt any authority to the Association to sell, convey, assign, or in any way encumber the common areas. ... Even if, as Anchorage asserts, the Assignment and settlement were adopted pursuant to a proper vote as provided by the Association bylaws, the absence of authority to execute such documents renders them ultra vires [and, hence, void] ..." S&T Anchorage, supra, 575 So.2d at 698.
Thank you for your attention to this Appeal.
Sincerely,
Gary skeeverse, Appellant
S-bag Lake Owner-Member
16 S-bag Trail
CC: FurrRedIck O'N eel (Attny), Esq.
Enclosures:
Letter to SLohA Officers/Stmbug Ixx/stab dated July 8, 2015
SLohA Unit 1 Declaration
SLohA Unit 2 Declaration
Amendment Unit 2 Declaration
SLohA Unit 3 Declaration
Hand Delivered to Addressee
July 15, 2015 2 of 2
Michael Craig
(863) 534-6730
MichaelCraig@polk-county.net
330 W. Church St., Bartow, Florida
Drawer AT01
P.O. Box 9005
Bartow, Florida 33831-9005 RE: 73-08M
S-bag Lake Resort
Dear Mr Craig:
I am appealing to you as Legal Counsel to the Polk County Commissioners, who will be hearing the above-named appeal on August 4th at 1:30pm.
It does appear, unfortunately, that some of the Applicants are unwilling to meet with the Owner that filed the Appeal. I have not yet had my “invitation” letter acknowledged by any of the recipients (copy enclosed) and that we must move forward with legal remedy.
I was told by the President, D Brnd, of SLohA's Board, that he refused to communicate with me in any way, shape or form. This was based on an altercation that occurred over a year ago. I hope that he would place the best interest of SLohA, myself and all of the homeowners in the resort above our personal feelings.
Notwithstanding that, I have sought the opinion of Legal Counsel who is retained by S-bag Neighbor Assistance Project (aka SNAP), FurrRedIck O'N eel (Attny), Esq. Mr. O'N eel (Attny) is retained by SNAP to provide legal consult and assistance of SLohA members when requested.
Mr. O'N eel (Attny)'s opinion of the current status of the Applicants' Land Use Modification request is that it is tantamount to Neighbor #1 seeking a variance from the County for an exclusive land use on Neighbor #2's property.” With regard to the towers, we are talking about easements over the common areas. SLohA is attempting to engage Polk County to Grnt an exclusive use easement of part of the common areas for the multiple towers. For this to be proper, one has to look at the original Grnt of powers to the HOA by the Developer in the original Declarations (there are 3 subdivisions involved). The three (3) Covenants are attached. As you see, there is no Grnt of power to SLohA by the Developer to Grnt exclusive use easements over any of the common property.
I request that the County not Grnt a permission/use modification to SLohA until they have researched whether SLohA has the power in the first place to Grnt an exclusive easement over any common areas to the internet company, Kay c Networks. I would ask that you agree, upon review of the documentation and cases cited, that there is no standing to do so. Without the power to Grnt an exclusive easement over the common area for the tower, SLohA has no standing to seek the County's permission.
Additionally, in the opinion of Mr. O'N eel (Attny), this case seems to be similar to those cited and summarized
below:
In Roth v. Springlake II Homeowners Association, Inc., 533 So.2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), ¾’s of the homeowners in a development approved the homeowners association’s Grnt of exclusive easements on common areas to the owners of certain patio homes in order to allow construction of patio extensions onto the common area. Dissenting homeowners sued. The trial court sided with the homeowners association and the dissenting owners appealed. The appellate court reversed, holding it was necessary to obtain 100% approval of all homeowners in order to allow such a Grnt of easements.
In S&T Anchorage, Inc. v. Lws, 575 So.2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (“S&T Anchorage”), the president of the association deeded away certain waterfront rights on common property. One lot owner objected, arguing the declaration gave no such authority to the association. In siding with the lot owner, the appellate court stated, in part, the following:
"The articles and bylaws [of the Association] must be consistent with the provisions of the superior document, the Declaration. ... The binding Declaration does not Grnt any authority to the Association to sell, convey, assign, or in any way encumber the common areas. ... Even if, as Anchorage asserts, the Assignment and settlement were adopted pursuant to a proper vote as provided by the Association bylaws, the absence of authority to execute such documents renders them ultra vires [and, hence, void] ..." S&T Anchorage, supra, 575 So.2d at 698.
Thank you for your attention to this Appeal.
Sincerely,
Gary skeeverse, Appellant
S-bag Lake Owner-Member
16 S-bag Trail
CC: FurrRedIck O'N eel (Attny), Esq.
Enclosures:
Letter to SLohA Officers/Stmbug Ixx/stab dated July 8, 2015
SLohA Unit 1 Declaration
SLohA Unit 2 Declaration
Amendment Unit 2 Declaration
SLohA Unit 3 Declaration
Hand Delivered to Addressee
July 15, 2015 2 of 2
This is the first letter requesting meeting with all parties on July 8th; there was no acknowledgement from any SLohA agent:
July 8, 2015
TO: SLohA Board of Directors Brnd (micdonedee@slrmail.com), Blkbrn (blackburntomi@yahoo.com), Suthrd (dinodoc3@slrmail.com) and Rite (jayeRite7@slrmail.com)and Robber stab (rbs@slrmail.com)
FROM Gary skeeverse
RE Land Use Modification APPEAL
As the sponsor of the current Appeal to the above Land Use Modification ruling by Polk County Land Commission to the application of D Brnd and Bb stab on June 3, 2015, I hereby request that all named parties undertake a focused discussion regarding the progress of this issue.
I ask that a meeting be held at the earliest possible date including board directors of SLohA, selected owners and Polk County Senior Planner Erik Pet erson, if he is willing to facilitate such a discussion. The inclusion of Mr. Pet erson will be helpful in clarifying certain administrative and technical questions. He led me to believe the addition to the Administration Office at 499 S-bag Trail may be the “new home” of the computer servers and other equipment necessary to operate Kay c Networks.
I must emphasize that I intend to avail myself of all avenues available, including additional appeals, litigation -both personal and corporate- and PhoneVites, to achieve a short term goal. My goal is to attain the agreement of the Application Applicants to postpone further progression of this Land Use Modification Appeal Process until all the Owners are in the resort and have had adequate opportunity to evaluate the proposals.
Should these land modifications be approved by the homeowners, I will work with same level of energy and dedication to assist in any way I can to expedite the land use modification which the Owners desire.
This would be best attained by putting this Application “on hold” to a date yet to be determined. This would reduce problems in the community and the courts, saving the association significant expenses. We want to engage the Board to enter into a fully-informed and transparent conversation of the intentions of both SLohA and Kay c Networks. Perhaps such a dialog will herald a new age of inclusiveness and participation in SLohA business affairs by all.
Please let me know your intentions by return email as soon as possible, so that meeting arrangements can be made. We are very closely reaching the date where we must make a decision regarding filing of continued litigation. If Mr. Pet erson is not available to facilitate such a meeting, then I request that a meeting be held on “neutral ground” within the park attended by an independent mediator, as agreed upon by all parties.
Respectfully,
Gary R. skeeverse, Owner 16 S-bag Trail
cc: Stmbug Ixx Inc (stambaughinc@verizon.net)
cc: Erik Pet erson, Polk County Senior Planner (erikPet erson@polk-county.net)
TO: SLohA Board of Directors Brnd (micdonedee@slrmail.com), Blkbrn (blackburntomi@yahoo.com), Suthrd (dinodoc3@slrmail.com) and Rite (jayeRite7@slrmail.com)and Robber stab (rbs@slrmail.com)
FROM Gary skeeverse
RE Land Use Modification APPEAL
As the sponsor of the current Appeal to the above Land Use Modification ruling by Polk County Land Commission to the application of D Brnd and Bb stab on June 3, 2015, I hereby request that all named parties undertake a focused discussion regarding the progress of this issue.
I ask that a meeting be held at the earliest possible date including board directors of SLohA, selected owners and Polk County Senior Planner Erik Pet erson, if he is willing to facilitate such a discussion. The inclusion of Mr. Pet erson will be helpful in clarifying certain administrative and technical questions. He led me to believe the addition to the Administration Office at 499 S-bag Trail may be the “new home” of the computer servers and other equipment necessary to operate Kay c Networks.
I must emphasize that I intend to avail myself of all avenues available, including additional appeals, litigation -both personal and corporate- and PhoneVites, to achieve a short term goal. My goal is to attain the agreement of the Application Applicants to postpone further progression of this Land Use Modification Appeal Process until all the Owners are in the resort and have had adequate opportunity to evaluate the proposals.
Should these land modifications be approved by the homeowners, I will work with same level of energy and dedication to assist in any way I can to expedite the land use modification which the Owners desire.
This would be best attained by putting this Application “on hold” to a date yet to be determined. This would reduce problems in the community and the courts, saving the association significant expenses. We want to engage the Board to enter into a fully-informed and transparent conversation of the intentions of both SLohA and Kay c Networks. Perhaps such a dialog will herald a new age of inclusiveness and participation in SLohA business affairs by all.
Please let me know your intentions by return email as soon as possible, so that meeting arrangements can be made. We are very closely reaching the date where we must make a decision regarding filing of continued litigation. If Mr. Pet erson is not available to facilitate such a meeting, then I request that a meeting be held on “neutral ground” within the park attended by an independent mediator, as agreed upon by all parties.
Respectfully,
Gary R. skeeverse, Owner 16 S-bag Trail
cc: Stmbug Ixx Inc (stambaughinc@verizon.net)
cc: Erik Pet erson, Polk County Senior Planner (erikPet erson@polk-county.net)
"What I see needs to be done is to have a Town H all type meeting with all the people, sit down and have a discussion on how to resolve these issues that is best suited for all of S-bag."
Who's fooling Who? Brnd has NO intention of talking to Owners about this issue.
