Meeting Minutes
|
HAMMOCK BEACH ESTATES HOME OWNER’S ASSOCIATION, INC. P.O. BOX 350668 PALM COAST, FLORIDA 32135
AGENDA FOR BOARD OF DIRECORS MEETING, JULY 13, 2010 @ 4:00PM AT THE HBE COMMUNITY POOL CALL TO ORDER AND ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA The meeting was called to order at 4:05PM and the President asked the Secretary for proof of notification of the meeting. The Secretary advised the announcement was placed on the bulletin board at the pool ten days in advance of the meeting, and that it appears on the WEB page as a regularly scheduled meeting. E-mail recipients were advised by the President ten days in advance of the meeting. The President asked for a motion to accept the agenda as presented. Vice – President Sara Clarke so moved and Treasurer Steve Robinson 2nd. The motion passed. READING OF THE MINUTES The President asked for a motion to forego the reading of the minutes, Board Member Peter Healey so moved, Sara Clarke 2nd. The motion passed. TREASURER’S REPORT Tr. Steve Robinson presented the report (attached) and asked that members present to note the large expense for the pool and the expenses for legal advisement in regards to roads. He expressed that the pool expense amount would not be that high on a yearly basis. He also expressed an outlook that our legal expenses would not increase. Larry Anderson queried that some of the pool expenses listed are in fact not pool expenses and should probably come under another account. Steve after some discussion advised he would revisit those expenses and make appropriate adjustments. Pete Healey moved the Treasurer’s report be accepted with later adjustments to be made. Sara Clarke 2nd. The motion passed. OPERATIONS REPORT Peter Healey reported that the pool is in good condition in regards to routine maintenance. The dry pond has water in it. There is much arrowhead weed growing, but was advised is it not a bad thing. The Large ponds are not looking good, however, they have been treated and it takes time for the treatment to take effect. Sara Clarke moved that the operations report be accepted as presented. Steve Robinson 2nd. The motion passed.
C&R ENFORCEMENT REPORT Sara Clarke reported that there are three units on Ocean Dune Circle in need of upkeep, and one residence on Mahoe Drive North of which construction work has not been completed. Ms. Clarke advised she will be sending letters to all parties, i.e., to 4, 15, and 17 Ocean Dune Circle, and to 14 Mahoe Dr. North. A home on Cottonwood that is under foreclosure has plastic tarp on the roof as temporary roofing and it is deteriorating and is an eyesore. Bob Hamby advised he will try to establish the responsible party and bring to their attention the conditions of the house and the violation of the covenants. Dennis Clark inquired about curb ornaments. The President pointed out that there is nothing in the C & R’s governing them.
ACHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Sara Clarke pointed out that many residents are doing things for which they need permission from the Association. The President advised that when he learns about any such matter he informs the parties involved about the covenants and county requirements. In the past he has received good cooperation. Sara Clarke also recommended that the Association needs to periodically remind residents that when painting their houses, whether they change color or not, are required to apply to the Architectural Committee. The President asked if the Board was satisfied with the way Architectural Review Requests for minor items have been handled to date – via email correspondence. Other Board members affirmed this manner of review is okay for maintenance items and minor changes not affecting nature of the house. He then said he would require detailed plans for review of any requests for major modifications to existing structures or new construction. BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE Sara Clarke informed that no significant tasks or functions have taken place other than pulling a few weeds. ROAD AND DRAINAGE COMMITTEE The President discussed the last meeting that was had with Mr. Coffey and Al Hadeed, a number of board members and residents attended the meeting. The discussion addressed two issues, roads and drainage. The drainage situation is very complex, however two important points in that regard were that drainage in the future can become a serious problem if and when all the lots in the neighborhood are developed. The importance of the canal will be significant in the future for at present all the empty lots act as absorbers of any extra water. Secondly, some residents have filled in their swales and these may in the future be re-dug. At the meeting our lawyer advised those present that in regards to the $40.000.00 put up by the developer for roads, that we would not sue if $11,000.00 of it is used to conduct a survey, (previously discussed in other meetings and by post), to show the inadequacy of the drainage system. The point was also made that drainage involves all the neighborhoods consequently the onus is not just on us.
OLD BUSINESS President Hamby asked Vice-President Sara Clarke to preside over the meeting from this moment. VP Sara Clarke accepted, the President then made a motion in regards to the situation on Ocean Dune Circle. Please see attachment. Larry Amuso moved that the motion be accepted. Peter Healey 2nd. The motion passed. NEW BUSINESS Bob Hamby asked for volunteers for the nominating committee. Peter Healey, Steve Robinson and Larry Amuso volunteered. MEMBER’S FORUM Dennis Clark addressed the subject about neighborhood associations limiting the dog types permitted in their neighborhoods. The President advised this will have to be taken into consideration since the new covenants have yet to be accepted by the neighborhood. ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 5:05PM.
Respectfully Submitted, Laurence Amuso, Secretary
Amended Motion to March 11, 2010 Motion:
Charles Weiss Response to Mike Joyce 4/13/2010 document On 4/13/2010 John Joyce (Mike) and a few selected property owners residing on the west side of Ocean Dune Circle (ODC) submitted, a document entitled Coming to a Solution on “Appurtenance” which proposed new definition of the word appurtenance as it appears in Art IX sec 8 of the C&Rs to Bob Hamby president of the HBEHOA executive Board. As you may recall Mike Joyce recently sued both me and the HBEHOA over this same issue. This proposed new definition takes significant property rights from those of us with property on the east side of ODC and devalues all of our properties. To address this I have written an orderly if some what repetitious analysis of their proposal and documentation.
The first paragraph of the above document is misleading in that the Board did not feel that the word “appurtenance” needed to be clarified, in fact the “Board was confident in its interpretation (of the word appurtenance) from the many years of interpretation of this C&R provision.” And that “an “appurtenance” refers only to a building structure that is an extension of the existing structure that extends the existing building structure beyond a 40-foot overall building width.”(Board Meeting Minutes 4/15/2010- 11E and F) To this point the word “appurtenance” has been defined in our community for 20 years since the inception of the C&Rs by the developer and 3 successive Boards by their actions. For example the residents of lot 10 were told that they had to redesign the proposed size of their solid elevator shaft attached to the north side of their house because the addition would cause the building to exceed 40-feet in width. They have also defined what are not “appurtenances” by permitting a driveway extending 25-feet south of the house on lot 1 and a gazebo placed 40-feet south of the house rising to a height of more than 13 feet, a patio that extends 15-feet south of the house on lot 6, fences 6-feet in height, and numerous pads upon which rest air conditioners, pool equipment and a generator. The second paragraph of the document is also misleading. Lots 25-29 are actually directly affected as Lots 25 and 26 already have in front of them the driveway and gazebo mentioned above. With respect to the third paragraph of the document the Board has already indicated that it will not act as a mediator in this matter. They have stated that they will follow the procedure outlined above (11E) if there is no agreement between the east and west side of ODC. In paragraph four of the document, I believe a Florida court would not likely “look to other legal sources” but rather would look to Florida law and rely heavily on precedent. Furthermore, the word “appurtenance” has not been “defined in an arbitrary way.” but rather by 20 years of decisions based on the intent of the developer, common sense, and the numerous precedents upon which those of us who purchased property on the ocean have relied upon and many of us who have purchased property on the west side of ODC, myself included, have understood. In reference to example #2 paragraph two of the document: There is no such easement to property owners on the west side of the street. In Florida law there is no entitlement to the “passage of light (a view) or air over an adjoining lot.” In the section of the document entitled “Resolving Our Differences” the first paragraph is incorrect. Twenty years of precedent have proven that driveways, gazebos, patios, fences, air conditioners, pool equipment, generators and their accompanying pads and support structures, pools and fountains are not appurtenances; to define them as such would be a significant taking of property rights and devalue property. With respect to the proposed amendment in the document: The word appurtenance has already been defined as cited above and requires no new definition. As expressed in the Board Meeting of 4/15/2010 “the Board will continue to be guided by 20 years of precedent when considering applications covered by Article IX section 8 –specifically, that an “appurtenance” refers only to a building structure that is an extension of the existing structure, and that extends the existing building structure beyond a 40-foot overall building width.” Lines 4-5 of the amendment would take property rights selectively from lots 2-12. In some cases they would not even be able to rebuild their properties to its original specifications in case of damage. Lines 5-7 is an attempt to exclude lot 1 from the restrictions this amendment attempts to apply to lots 2-12. Lot 1 also contains two of the structures the amendment wishes to include in this new definition of “appurtenance” namely a driveway extending 25 feet south of the house on lot 1 and a gazebo which is 40 feet from the house and is more than 13 feet high. Lines 7 thru 11 of the proposed amendment outline restrictions on fences and other structures which are in excess of existing structures built on properties 1-12. The next paragraph of the document attempts to justify the exclusion of the southern portion of lot 1 from the above restrictions. First of all there is no precedent for dividing a property in this manner. Secondly Lots 25 and 26 already are facing two of the structures currently built on the southern portion of lot 1 that the new proposed amendment is attempting to restrict. Finally the paragraph states that “no residence can be built” and while this is true this amendment is not discussing a residence but rather structures adjacent to a residence that it attempts to restrict. In summation this proposed amendment attempts to deprive those of us with property on the ocean of many of our property rights and much of the value of our properties. We believe the Board should continue to be guided as expressed in item 11E in the Board Minutes of 4/15/2010 and reaffirm its rejection of the proposed new amendment.
Signed
Charles Weiss MD, on behalf of the owners of lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 19.
|
