March 30, 2020 at 9:18 pm #3724Owen KirbyParticipant
The following proposed amendment, namely a per diem fine for what in some instances could amount to addressing critical structural threats to one’s property, without prior TSB approval, appears punitive and liable to arbitrary enforcement. If the goal here is merely to limit noise and disruptions during the summer months, attempting to prevent owners from responsive and responsible maintenance of their investments does not seem the most appropriate path forward; nor does threatening all because of the actions of a few in summers past. If I remember correctly, this is one of the issues that undermined the passage of changes to the covenants last year.
Any construction after the Grace Period without prior TSBA
written approval, for: (1) minor repairs; (2) other
permitted repairs and construction described below; and
(3) emergency repairs approved by the Tower Shores
Board of Directors prior to commencement of such
repairs., shall be a violation of the Restrictive Covenants
and subject to a per diem fine as established by the
Board, currently Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00).
March 30, 2020 at 9:41 pm #3725
Owen: the Board has had a property owner for the past three years continue with a renovation project after the moratorium and the only resolution dispute numerous requests, meetings and notices was to file a lawsuit and a temporary restraining order, which would require an emergency hearing. The goal above was to avoid the community from having to incur those extreme expenses. It was not to rack up fines for minor repairs, permitted repairs or emergency repairs. For those issues, ones that did not exist prior to the moratorium, an email or message through the website of an emergency would certainly be an exception.
As you’ll see, no other area in the amendments has fines. The amendments aren’t perfect but certainly would make it costly for continued renovations or unnecessary loud project that violate the moratorium. IF you have suggested language to incorporate these changes, please bring to the board meeting. Thanks for reading the amendments.
March 30, 2020 at 10:18 pm #3727Brad MandelParticipant
Owen and Diane:
I agree with the board on this one (fyi other beach communities charge 1,000.00 fines per day) with two reasonable conditions:
1. Tell homeowners who is the point person on the board for this, and that person is responsible for communicating back in a very timely manner said approval.
2. Waive the pre-approval on EMERGENCY REPAIRS – with clarification. Emergency repairs such as a burst pipe, roof leak, water damage, fire or structural damage automatically waives prior board approval as long as the board is notified within a reasonable time (24-48 hours) to not prolong the repair. In addition it would make common sense to notify your closest neighbors that may be affected by the repairs and said repairs are recommended between the hours of 10am-4pm.
March 30, 2020 at 11:06 pm #3728
Brad – that seems reasonable and goes to the heart of the issue.
April 6, 2020 at 1:15 pm #3787
Would you please post a map highlighting which lots are R-1 and which are R-2. Also, would you please let me know who is on the by-laws and covenants committee and who is the chair.
April 6, 2020 at 2:56 pm #3788
Matt – there is a document that identifies the changes and rationale. That should be uploaded on the website as well.
The committee was Karen Castles, Miles and I. If you want to call me the chair you can but three of us equally reviewed the changes from last year but applied them to the current versions of the documents. We removed any change that applied to provisions not in the current version. No additional changes where made that the attorney didn’t approve last year.
April 6, 2020 at 3:28 pm #3789
Sorry, I somehow deleted part of my email
Page 2 of that document.
R-1 is condos and town homes
R-2 is single family and duplexes
April 9, 2020 at 12:56 am #3814
Thank you for responding. Would you please check the designation of R-1 and R-2. They appear reversed in your response, i.e., the explanation of proposed changes names “(aka Altantic Watergate)” in the R-2 designation.
April 9, 2020 at 11:54 pm #3822
Matt et al,
You are correct. The “Restrictive Covenant proposed changes” document had designations R-1 and R-2 reversed. R-1 is single family and duplexes, R-2 is condos and multi-unit townhomes. The document has been corrected and uploaded to the website.
Many thanks for your careful scrutiny of the proposed changes. Our hope is that all owners will read and comment on these documents prior to voting to accept at the 2020 TSBA annual meeting. Please post any questions and/or comments here on the Forum.
April 12, 2020 at 5:25 pm #3837
Regarding the classification of R-1 and R-2, are the proposed covenants backwards, or the above responses? The proposed covenants previously, and still do, identify Atlantic Watergate and condos as R-2. On that subject, would you please explain why the rebuilding allowances are different for R-1 than R-2 (see proposed language below)?
G. In the case that a building on a designated R-2 Lot is not in conformity with these setbacks at the time of the adoption of this version of these Restrictive Covenants, it will not be considered to be in violation of the Restrictive Covenants. Furthermore, the existing set-backs will be considered the setbacks for that lot, and if such damage were sustained as to require re-building, such setbacks shall be honored.
(H) In the case that a building on a Lot designated R-1 were to sustain such damage as to require re-building of more than fifty percent (50%) of the structure, the set- back requirement specified herein for R-1 shall apply.
Thank you and stay well,
April 13, 2020 at 12:54 am #3842
As I posted on 4/9 on the Forum, we erred in our draft of the Restrictive Covenants and reversed the definition of R-1 and R-2 under Rationale for Modification on page 2 of the Proposed Changes. The error has been corrected and the updated page posted on the website now reads:
“Designated three categories of properties within Tower Shores:
R-1 (single-family homes and duplexes)
R-2 (condominiums and town houses)
The proposed language in Paragraph 5-G in page 5 “grandfathers in units that may not be in compliance”. This was written this way to exempt those units not currently in compliance with required setbacks ie: Atlantic Watergate buildings A & B from having to comply with setback requirements if destroyed and rebuilt.
Similarly, paragraph 5-H stipulates that single family homes, if destroyed, would have to comply with the setbacks as defined in the Restrictive Covenants.
Thanks again for your careful read of the proposed language.
April 13, 2020 at 1:04 am #3843
Are you saying that Atlantic Watergate A&B are currently not in compliance with existing setback requirements? If so, which one(s)?
April 15, 2020 at 3:47 pm #3854Ali BerneyParticipant
I have reserved comment but am following this thread. Thank you to all for their diligence.
April 15, 2020 at 4:20 pm #3855
Hi Ali et al,
We had several recommendations for updates to the draft documents at the TSBA Board meeting on Monday night. We will meet soon to incorporate these recommendations. We would ask that you and all owners NOT reserve comment but let us know what you’re thinking here on the Forum so all can see what’s being discussed and avoid duplication of effort.
As stated in an earlier post, “Our hope is that all owners will read and comment on these documents prior to voting to accept at the 2020 TSBA annual meeting. Please post any questions and/or comments here on the Forum.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.