Re: neighbor problems - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.� �� y� �� ; il�'� � � h�� ' Melanie Curtis From: Rick Apple[applerc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 5:45 �� To: Melanie Curtis Subject: Re: Winkey project 10 Sugarwood Dr. - Melanie,thank you for your continued work on this. ciate it. As for the idea that the the City sign off on projects if the HOA does, that is so problematic that I clearly did a poor job of explaining the situation. Please allow me to clarify a few points: 1. I have been going to the Board about this issue since the day it happened nearly two years ago. Literally, I had a Board member standing there looking at 201arge tree stumps within an hour of the trees being cut down. He was surprised and appalled but I have come to the City because,despite that, the Board has refused to take any action to rectify the situation or,worst case,to put a lien on the Winkey house until corrective acticin is taken(as the HOA covenants specify). Perhaps this is not surprising since the President now lives in Switzerland, leaving the Vice President in charge. Do you know who the Vice President is? Lisa Winkey. 2. In addition to the cut down of the trees,there are other covenants not being enforced. Again,using the Winkeys as an example (because they are the only house in my line of sight that is violating),they have: industrial equipment(presumably pumps and filters)unshielded in their back yard(certainly not in keeping with the Sugar Woods landscaping standazds that the covenants require) and directly visible from our bedrooms, sun room, family room, and kitchen; a visible satellite dish on their roof; a basketball hoop cemented into their driveway; and a large sign on the basketball hoop. I have brought up all of these as issues and been told by the Boazd that they are not going to do anything in response to the Winkeys violations. (And, clearly, nearly two yeazs of inaction underscores that point.) 3. The confidentiality I was seeking was only in regard to my approaching the City. The Board knows of my frustration with the Winkey violations but has shown no interest in doing anything about it,which is the only reason I came to you. (Again, I tried to work with the Board for two years but to no avail.) So you see the problem with your suggestion that the City rely on the approval of the Board. That plan would destroy the very thing I came to you for: protection from a Board that is not enforcing the covenants. I have heard,happily,that there is about to be a change in Board makeup but that doesn't remove the need for the City to support us. A Board can run amok at any time as this case has shown. Clearly, Lisa Winkey, as vice president of our Board, knows all of their violations and knew without a doubt that cutting down the trees was strictly forbidden but, as she explained to me, "that was the only was they could get the larger patio that they wanted." (And you saw the misleading email she sent before the pool project was started.) So how can the solution be to "work with the Board and the City will approve only if the Board does?" Not only does that take away the City's oversight role, it actually strengthens the Board by removing all oversight of it. Again, I am looking for your help because the Board is not fulfilling its obligations. Right now,they ara part of the problem, not the solution. I believe the City has an interest in making sure that HOA covenants are followed and enforced, and certainly in the case of Sugar Woods the Citv hasa lon�h�storv of providing � su�ort+. It is the character of the neighborhood and the covenants that are supposed to protect that character that drew us here in the first place. Obviously, both our ability to enjoy our home and our property value are being hurt by our Board's unilateral decision not to enforce covenants. So I need your help because the Board has made it clear that theirs is not forthcoming. i,� .,�} 1 �s,p��? ,