HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe: neighbor problems .� ��� � ��� � � � 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��?
,
� Thanks again, and I'd be happy to clarify any of this via email, on the phone, or in person. We are not trying to
be nitpickers but we have gone from looking at trees to looking at concrete, lounge chairs, an 'd tndl� ri 1
equipment -- all after being guaranteed by neighborhood covenants that that wouldn't happen. Now that it has,
we just need someone to show that the covenants actually mean something.
Sincerely,
�c���
Rick Apple ��
v�b�, �
�
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Melanie Curtis <MCurtis�a,ci.orono.mn.us>wrote:
Rick
I apologize for the delay in my response to you but wanted to go out to view the site before responding, I viewed the
Winkey site from off of the property at your request and observed the areas where you indicated trees were removed. I
agree that there were trees removed from some or most of the locations where the retaining walls were constructed. It
also appears that, as you indicated, the Winkeys have planted some smailer replacement trees in the areas of removal.
The Sugar Woods Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions document indicates that the City shall have the
right, but not the obligation, to enforce the provisions in Article IX, Sections 14 and 16. In the end, it is a HOA document
to be enforced by the HOA. Based on my review of the site there isn't a specific reason the City would step in to require
restoration. I think you indicated that you want your complaint to remain confidential and that you prefer not to
approach the HOA. However, it is the HOA who should provide some guidance and/or require planting of additional trees
for screening.
I would like to suggest that in the future when permits are received for projects in the Sugar Woods development the City
will withhold the issuance of the permit until the HOA provides written approval of the plans. I think this would force a
more active review role by the HOA. What do you think?
Please feel free to call me to discuss this further if you wish.
Thanks— Melanie
Melanie Curtis
Direct 952.249.4627
Planning &Zoning Office 952.249.4620
Email: mcurtisan.ci.orono.mn.us
Website: www.ci.orono.mn.us
2
I
Summer Office Hours: May 19 through August 29, 2014
Monday through Thursday: 7:30 am to 5 pm & Fridays: 7:30 am to 11:30 am
_ _ __ _
From: Rick Appie [maiito:a�plerc@gmail.coml .
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 9:44 AM
To: Melanie Curtis
Subject: Winkey project
Melanie,thank you for your time and help. I thought you might be interested to see the email that the Winkeys
sent to their neighbors before they started the project so I here it is:
Hi Neighbors!
Travis& I wanted to let our direct neighbors know that in the next few weeks we will be starting an in ground pool project.
We will be pulling up our sport court and replacing it with a pool. We will not be incurring any additional hard cover-in
fact the pool will not be as intrusively big as the current sport court. The pool dimensions are smaller than our
current court. A few smaller trees may be removed in order to allow us to plant evergreens for visual privacy. We will
NOT be installing a fence but investing in an automatic pool cover.
We apologize in advance for the noise and disruption. We are shooting for a mid-August completion date. Let me know if
you have any questions.
Happy Summer!
Travis& Lisa
Based on this, we all thought the project was pretty much a non-issue but, as we discussed, this is not at all
representative of what happened:
1. 25+ sugar maples were removed, at least 10 of which were large, mature ones.
2. I don't know the size of the pool vs. the previous sport court, but when one includes the surrounding concrete
area, the fire pit, etc., the area is MUCH bigger than the sport court was(which is why they had to excavate into
the small berm that separates us.) Clearly, the Winkey"announcement"is completely misleading in this regard.
3. There was no mention that industrial-style equipment would be added to their yard with no screening.
4. Etc., etc., etc.
Beyond all these specifics, the larger point is that they knowingly violated neighborhood covenants and continue to do so
(not only with the pool, but with the satellite dish on the roof, the in-ground basketball hoop, etc.)and neither they, nor the
3
�- Board, has the right to ignore the covenants or grant waivers for specific residents (even Board VP Lisa Winkey). In fact,
the Board is supposed to put a waiver on the house of any resident who refuses to comply but, instead, our Board is
completely ignoring this issue.
Now, we are looking for relief--and to raise awareness with the City about these issues in general. (Last fall, another
pool was installed directly across the street from me and they, too, cut trees down to make it happen. This is not
supposed to be allowed. And because of the placement of that pool and the removal of trees there, too, guess what I can
now see from my dining room? Not nearly as big an intrusion as the Winkey project but nevertheless I was supposed to
be protected from that.)
Finally, input from my wife: she is hoping that our involvement in this complaint can be kept in confidence. As I said, we
do have friends on the board and want to be good neighbors but can't keep silent when our good nature is being so taken
advantage of.
Thank you again,
Rick Apple
2101 Sugarwood Drive
4