I have been asked to define, or explain the "etc". I used in an earlier posting.
"A Review of the results on the latest poll, which concerns the parking of RV’s etc. in front of properties, shows strong support for enforcement. Although I strongly support enforcement, I am interested in the ideas that those that voted for change have. Can we hear all ideas that residents have as to how we can improve this regulation?”
Current rules state that boats, trailers or RVs are not permitted to be parked within the setback area in front of a home, either on the driveway or anywhere else. Our poll showed 44 of 60 respondents approved enforcement.
In discussions held by the Rules Committee, items such as boat & utility trailers, boats, Skidoos, and even such things as lawn mowers on trailers used by those mowing lawns have come up. Those are the specific items that have been mentioned.
What are your thoughts? Should other items be added to the restricted list? If these and other items, like golf carts and motorcycles, are allowed, should there be a restriction on the number of personal transportation vehicles allowed to be parked in front of a home?
Let’s get some discussion going.
Dick…..I will be at the “meeting” tomorrow, come rain, wind, and or high water. However, under under section 1.1 an improvement is anything the wording “the whole or parts of which are arranged by human agency” would include a boat, etc, since they were not built by God, The wording, “An Improvement may also include” in affect indicates that the items listed become improvements subject to the restriction if there is another improvement, such as a Park Model located on the lot. If there was no other improvement a motor home, travel trailer, and boat are permitted as long as “parked” within the setback requirements. Let’s see if the “official interpretation agrees with mine.
Dave: Somehow I’m failing to get through. You’re not reading what the Sections you quote actually say. You will not find the term “front setback” in any of those Sections. You will not find a specific prohibition against RVs, boats and trailers in the front setback. What you will find is a very broad definition of an “Improvement”, which “may also include, when located on a Lot, a Manufactured Home, Mobile Home, Modular Home, Park Model, Park Trailer, Recreational Vehicle, Tent, Utility Trailer, Trailer or Vehicle when the context requires”.
“…when the context requires” – key words. What’s the context? Well, folks, it doesn’t exist. And that’s my whole point. The Covenants gives the Cove the broad authority to define almost anything as an “Improvement”. But you gotta get past the “may also include” and the “when the context requires” language. And you can do that with a Covenant Rule. But it hasn’t been done yet.
Let’s see how the Rules Committee Chairman presents this tomorrow.
I could not make the meeting Dick—was playing Brats Bus Driver for the spouse of a Board Member whose chariot required hospitalization in Pensacola.
I suggest you look at 1.22 of the covenants for a definition of an Improvement, and Accessory Improvements. Sections 8.37 under Residential and 8.39 under Land Harbor restrict the locating of an improvement within the front setback. Does this answer your questions? Sorry if I am giving you a hard time, but I tend to know the rules, but not where to find them. I always had Gene Wabnitz, Bill Miller, and Sally to supply the numbers. Incidentally, that is probably why I sympathize with you so much. “The Darn Book is Impossible”.
Dave: Missed you at the Board meeting today. I think we’re finally starting to find some common ground. You haven’t shown me yet, though, where our Covenants or Rules state that RV’s, boats & trailers are prohibited in the front setback. But if I understood him correctly, Bill Campbell has promised to reveal that at Saturday’s Town Hall. That task may be more difficult than any of us would like it to be, but this exercise may bring the desired result – the realization that the Covenants are deficient in this area and some people may have been operating under a misconception for some time. It’s not a major issue, unless of course you happen to be someone who wants to park one of those items and someone else believes it’s against the rules!
As for rule simplification, let’s go for it. Now THAT may be a major issue!! The key advantage of having a strong restricted covenant community is having the legal basis for enforcing those covenants. Hard to simplify language and keep the legal teeth.
Dick, I think the confusion that exists concerning the side setbacks can be best eliminated as follows: Section 8.03 refers to constructed, or permanent things, not stored things. Nothing permanent can be put in the side setbacks, however there are no restrictions on storing something within it on a temporary basis. I should add that there is a restriction of the number of boats, trailers, etc indicated elsewhere. I think discussion concerning the number of these items allowed to be stored anywhere on the lot would be appropriate and beneficial as regard to my asking for comments. Let me add I agree wholeheartedly with all those who say there is a need to shorten, simplify, and in general make our combined rules and regulations easier to understand and to locate the appropriate sections.
#17 Sam: I know hindsight’s 20/20, but, as Sally mentioned, a request for Variance would have likely been in order. Many Land Harbor lots are so small that you can’t fit a Park Model without encroaching on the front setback, especially if a shed was built or installed when the lot was previously used for an RV. A quick look around Land Harbor will show quite a few Park Models that are less than 20 ft from the front line. The Variance request would have slowed the process somewhat, but for 8 inches I doubt if your neighbors or the Board would have had any problem. Something to keep in mind if you decide to come back to paradise (yes, you naysayers – paradise). You can research all the requirements for such a Variance in the Documents section of this site. It’s easy to conduct a word search. Handy, eh?
#16 Sally: I just went and read 8.03. It mentions “Building Setback lines”, not FRONT setback. And the language would never lead a reasonable person to believe that an RV, trailer or boat would be defined as an “Improvement”. Here’s Section 8.03:
“Section 8.03 Building Setback Except as provided in this Declaration, no Improvement, except the surface of a parking area, sidewalk or driveway, fences, Retaining Walls or sprinkler systems, located on any Lot shall be erected, altered, remodeled, constructed or added to so as to be located any nearer to any Lot Property Line than the Building Setback lines shown on the recorded maps or plats of Spanish Cove or as elsewhere set out in this Declaration or in any validly existing legal document properly imposing
Building Setback lines on any Lot.”
What am I missing here? I don’t want to appear argumentative, but I feel as if I’m either nuts or I can’t read. Am I the only one who sees this? I don’t see how an RV, boat, trailer, or any vehicle can be “erected, altered, remodeled, constructed or added”. Those words refer to and imply “building”. You even used the word “built” in your reply.
This dance is wearing me out (but not down!)
I see. Thanks for the explanation.
Sally – The peak at the rear of the Park Model, I believe you said you lived in one at one time, extended out 8 inches at the rear. (Michael) This extension caused the unit to be moved forward to clear the roof on the utility building which put me over the chalk line at the front set back.
#3. Sorry, Dick. I should have added 8.03. That’s the section that says nothing may be built in the front setback. 8.36 also mentions no more than a two-foot overhang in the setback is allowed. I don’t know if Sam refers to 8′ or 8″ on his overhang in the back. Depending on some of the details, he might have been able to get a variance. But, as he said, the only way it would have fit was to disassemble his utility building, so the question is moot.
Sam, so what you are saying is the “only” set back the inspector was concerened with is the front set back?
At one time, I owned an RV lot in the Cove and I left my Rv there for the winter season. My wife and I decided to give it a try and we soon discovered that we would prefer a Park Model Vs. the RV. We went down to a place called “Laidback Livin” and found one we liked and placed a down payment on it. I was concerned with it’s placement on the lot as so the owner came out to measure and it fell 8* over the set back because of a roof over hang at the rear. I than requested the Cove inspector to check it out for a possible variance. He drove up in his car, drew a line on my driveway and said as long as I didn’t exceed that mark it wold be ok. Without another word, he drove off. Acutually the Park Model would have fit with the exception of the roof . It project outward at the rear peak and the only way I could have squeezed it in was to disassemble my utility building. This would than require five permits. Two from the Cove (permit and contractor registration) and the others from the county for building, plumbing and electrical. Came to the sum of $800.00 excluding the labor to accomplish this. More than my utility shed was worth.
Obviously, we cancelled our order.
And to further my confusion, Dave, you insist that the discussion only includes the front setback. I think the discussion should include what’s written in the Cove’s official documents, which I’ve tried to quote here. I invite you to re-read #1 and #5. Now that you’ve opened this can of worms, ya gotta let ‘em wriggle!
Dave: Now I’m confused again. You say the “storage lot” applies only to Land Harbor. From what I read in the Covenants, the contiguous lot rule applies to everyone. From the definition of a “Developed Lot”, section 1.22:
“D. An Owner of a Developed Lot who also owns a contiguous Undeveloped Lot may store a Recreational Vehicle (which shall not include a Park Model or Park Trailer), Boat (with or without a Boat Trailer) or Utility Trailer on the contiguous Undeveloped Lot and said contiguous Undeveloped Lot shall not be considered a Developed Lot for the purposes of Assessment.”
Is there a Covenant elsewhere that negates that?
Ahh Sam, the $64 question. There have been many attempts to define that for assessment purposes, without any real success. Actually the big problem is within Land Harbor where one is permitted to have a contiguous “storage lot” with a shed, pad, or, I believe one of the “car/motor home” barns on it without the lot being considered an improved lot for assessment purposes. In the rest of the Cove, a structure is not permitted on a lot without a residence on it.
You are right about the limitations size puts on storage. There is no restrictions, other than number of items that can be stored/parked on the side setbacks except that they can not be placed in front of the designated front setback. The area within the front setback is what is being discussed here.
I am not aware of the Fire Dept ever expressing a concern about following a fire code in this regard. There probably is none.
I’m still trying to find out what constitutes an improved lot vs. an unimproved lot. The last response I received was to ask Charlie. What document does Charlie use to make these decisions?
Regarding the 20 ft setback for Land Harbor, the lots are 40×80 with a front and rear and side set back. Once you have a park model with a porch or an RV with a deck, the only place left to park is on the set back. I often wonder if this arrangement meets the fire code or maybe there is none?
My personal view is that the Rules, Regulations, By-Laws, etc. should be drastically cut and primarily in plain language. Then the Operations Manager would use his discretion to deal with many of the issues that come up. The Property Owner would be able to appeal his (or her) decision to the Board to consider. I’ve sat through some of the sessions trying to define something to everyones satisfaction and the result is often messy.
Dave: I gotta go back to my original question: What are the rules and what document implements them? Sally is researching a Welcome Package handout and has proposed an explanatory document in the past. Neither of those adresses the deficiency in the Covenants or other documents. Neither is an “official” Cove document with the necessary legal teeth. What must be decided is, “What do we want to accomplish?” and then the answer needs to be promulgated in clear and concise terms.
Now that the discussion is rolling, I’ll say that I personally have no problem with these temporary items in the setback area. The word is temporary. As long as a neighbor’s property rights are not violated and the item isn’t an eyesore or nuisance, let it go. What’s an eyesore or nuisance? I guess it’s like pornography. Nobody has to define it for you. If you’ve seen it you know what it is.
I think many people are looking for a common-sense approach to the rules by which we live in the Cove. We don’t want animals running loose and bothering people or damaging property; we don’t want people neglecting their homes and yards; we don’t want people driving recklessly on our narrow & winding roads. We want to maintain property values. We want well-maintained roads and amenities we can all share. There’s more but I’ll stop there, except to say that most of us do want rules.
But we don’t want rules that are arbitrarily enforced or so draconian as to make our daily lives miserable. For the most part, I think the rules are reasonable. For those who wish to make changes, I think this forum, and writing to your Rules Committee, can effect those changes (assuming there are others who feel as you do about it).
For me, this confusing item regarding what you can park where is a good place to start.
Thank you Sally. Dick, you are lucky Sally got to your posting before I did, she not only knows so much more than I do, but says it so much better too. Sally, if I get me a teleprompter can I hire you as my speechwriter in the event I ever desire say anything in public. Dick, actually you have hit the reason for my question in the Bulls Eye. Enforcement is a simple do it or don’t do it. It is the change votes that I found interesting. Those votes said that they thought some changes were necessary. They did not say what changes, however. I would like to see and hear them and to start a discussion on them.
There has never been any prohibition, to the best of my knowledge against the placing of any item temporarily (and lets not get into what is temporary, that is as bad as defining is} within the side or back setbacks. In fact many lots have cement pads on the side of their house within the “side setback” In my opinion, part of the parking problem in both the Pines and Land Harbor is the lack of space along side the home. We, POASC, have created a world with more things to be stored than there is storage space.
Do you, or anyone else, have any idea on how this problem should be corrected, or should we just leave things as they are and enforce the current rules, which a significant majority indicated they wanted
What are the rules for bringing a utility/motorcycle trailer down for a weekend? Do we have to be blessed the Spanish Cove detectives? Do you get a special parking permit for your property for parking your property on your property?
Seems like need more activities for the full time citizens of Spanish Cove so they can’t ride around looking for anyone that might not meet all the cove rules.
Property for Sale. Sounds like a plan.
Sally : Thanks for your reply, but here’s a little more spice for the stew. Dave’s initial post speaks to the FRONT setback. The Covenant sections you cited restrict ALL setback areas, including the sides and the rear. Might be a few people with boats, trailers and RVs parked in their side yards who would be surprised that they’re also included in the general proscription.
There is a list that is distributed in the Welcome Packet. We always called it the “No No” list. I will try to get a copy and post it here. It probably needs updating. It is in plain language. The attorney that we worked with on the Covenants revision felt we needed language that could be held up in court. I had made a “Covenants for Dummies” document, but he was against publishing anything like that. Maybe I should see if I still have it and update it. Stay tuned . . .
Sally: So I’m correct that the definition of “Improvement” is the source of the restriction. How many property owners could possibly get that meaning from such language? I agree, it’s “legalese”, and for something as basic as, “We don’t want to see your RV, boat or trailer parked in front of your home”, this one seems to take the long trip around the barn. I’vew been trying to make a bit of a study of the various Cove documents, especially since you folks were kind enough to post them here, but I would neve have gleaned that meaning from the documents themselves. If I may paraphrase what you wrote, we can’t BUILD anything in the setback, BUT we’re allowed to have certain items on our lot BUT those things must meet other requirements of the Covenants which includes IMPROVEMENTS which May be defined as the items in section 1.22. Whew!!
Not trying to be sarcastic there, and my capitalization is for emphasis, not yelling. But I’m sure most can see what kind of mental gymnastics one must go through to reach the same conclusion as you say the Cove has reached.
I would strongly recommend to any members of the Rules Committee that they take this up as an issue. Something this basic ought to be addressed in basic terms.
Dick, I know you didn’t ask me, but I got to the question before Dave, I guess. Check out 8.36 and 8.37 of the Covenants. This section is about Residential Lots, but the sections on RVs and Manufactured Homes say the same thing. The setback in Land Harbor, though, is 20 feet instead of the 30 feet in the other areas. Although it is in legalese, it basically says that nothing may be built in the setback. It also says that two of any of the following may be located on a lot, RV, boat with or without a boat trailer, utility trailer, etc., but must meet other requirements of the Covenants which says no improvement may be placed in the setback. See the definition of “improvement” Section 1.22. Hope this helps.
Dave: Before I expand the discussion to include additional items, please tell me where I can find the reference in the Rules that specifically prohibits boats, RVs and trailers in the front setback area. I have done what I think is a thorough search, and I can’t find such language. The closest I can find that even remotely pertains is the definition of an “Improvement” in the Covenants:
“Section 1.22 “Improvement” shall mean and refer to anything that is built, added or changed from the original configuration and located on, upon or in a Lot. An Improvement shall include, but is not limited to, a Dwelling, building, deck, balcony, patio, porch, pool, parking area, gazebo, well, sprinkler system, or other object, the whole or parts of which are arranged by human agency. An Improvement may also include, when located on a Lot, a Manufactured Home, Mobile Home, Modular Home, Park Model, Park Trailer, Recreational Vehicle, Tent, Utility Trailer, Trailer or Vehicle when the context requires”.
I’m not saying I’m in favor of or opposed to parking RVs, trailers or boats in the front setback. I am saying, however, that the rules may be ambiguous, or we may be trying to enforce a rule that everyone, including me, has trouble finding. And if Section 1.22 actually is the basis for the restriction, I’m having trouble seeing a utility trailer or ‘vehicle’ as an Improvement. Boats aren’t mentioned in this definition at all (though they’d likely be on a trailer and trailers are mentioned).
Anyway, I may be going on about nothing. I may have missed the Rule reference entirely. So I’ll stop and see what comes back. Thanks