Post by lou on Feb 13, 2014 16:45:35 GMT -5
Neighbors, I have been told by the Board president that we cannot call or send emails to Board members relating to GHPOA issues. That we can only contact them through the GHPOA mailbox for anything official. On that direction, I sent the following letter to them explaining my reasons for voting against spending $30,000 for legal costs that should be used for the management and oversight of the GHPOA properties and facilities. This is lengthy, but there was a lot to be said. I hope it will be read.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
GHPOA
44 Glen Haven
Harpers Ferry, WV 25425
Dear GHPOA Board of Directors:
This responds to the January 10, 2014, letter from the GHPOA Board of Directors (Board) seeking the membership’s approval to enforce the GHPOA Protective Covenants and Restrictions (Covenants) at a proposed cost of $30,000.00 to bring suit against the property owner at 80 Natalie Lane. Although my ballot was timely submitted, I still want the Board to know the reasons for my decision. This letter explains my vote.
I have lived over 15 years in Glen Haven and conclude that past and current Boards have deemed nonconforming activities carried out by themselves and other residents to be acceptable practices. Therefore, I voted “No” because I perceive it to be a misuse of GHPOA funds for an action without merit. The GHPOA membership fees are to be used for the continued management and oversight of the common roads, buildings, and grounds of Glen Haven and expenditure on the proposed court action could result in the demise of the GHPOA.
In dissenting, I am not attempting to undermine the Board, but I respect Mr. Yuen’s right to own and rent property in Glen Haven. I, along with all other owners, have the same property rights. I also have the right to assume that as a dues-paying member, GHPOA funds will be available to cover most, if not all, future expenses for the common areas and facilities. In spite of my vote, I will continue to pay annual dues to help keep the GHPOA a viable organization. However, to the extent that I have any control, I do not want any portion of my current 2013 dues or future dues used for this “legal action” budget line item. I do believe in complying with the Covenants, but it seems the property at 80 Natalie Lane is not a valid Board issue. Thus, this letter (I apologize for its length only) is a reminder of the conduct and inaction, although not inclusive, of previous and current Boards that have managed the GHPOA. I would hope that you’ll read to the end as it points to the Board’s targeting one property owner while it seems to show no concern for several other property owners with obvious violations.
Glen Haven is an insular riverfront neighborhood composed of an educationally, racially, and economically diverse group of individuals and families. Therefore, I don’t take pleasure in writing this letter, but the legal proposal is not only detrimental to the fiscal stability of the GHPOA, but to the community’s health and safety as well. Unfortunately, this property use issue has engulfed the entire community pitting Board against community, community against Board, neighbor against neighbor, and friend against friend. Sometimes people’s emotions flair and some people respond irrationally; some may be more irrational than others. This is not a threat from me so don’t publicize that it is; it is a perception. Someone may get hurt and it won’t be Mr. Yuen or his renters who will have caused it or done it. It’ll be one of these other neighbors going beyond the realm of reasoning, taking the law into their own hands. The longer this continues, the more divisive the community becomes with little chance of healing. Moreover, if this goes to court, this Glen Haven neighborhood will be the “biggest loser” since there will be little or no GHPOA funds to manage the common facilities and areas.
In regard to the property, it is my perception that the renters of Mr. Yuen’s house are not taking anything from this community. One of these renters may like the neighborhood so much that they will want to buy here. Instead, the animosity and hatred within Glen Haven has brought fear and contempt for one another which have not been caused by the actions of renters in the Yuen property. The owner or renter who is ostracized may be the person who will call the fire department, offer medical assistance, help a child or ailing spouse or parent, provide transportation, etc. Of course, we must be aware of our surroundings and forever vigilant for our safety and well being, but let’s not continue to breed hate and anger and destroy this community because our opinions differ. Ultimately, the Board has control over how far this issue will go. Having said this, I’m providing my reasons for casting a “No” vote on the ballot.
Attorney Costs for Legal Action Proposal:
a) According to the proposal, the Board’s “lawyer has requested a $10,000 retainer to go to court and enforce our mutual property rights. He has estimated that legal action could take up to an additional $20,000 to go to completion ($30,000, total). Should we prevail, there is a good possibility we can recoup our legal expenses and perhaps some damages.” Regrettably, I don’t have the understanding of the law that many Board members apparently do, but I find it difficult to understand what has occurred to the GHPOA that the Board would expect to recoup damages. Hopefully this was not stated to encourage more members to endorse using the limited GHPOA general funds in expectation of recovering even more money. The proposal also states, “We have many things going for us….” That may be so, but they are unknown to this member and I suspect others. On the other hand, the Board also has a lot of things going against it which is why I voted as I did. More importantly, if the verdict is unfavorable to the GHPOA, the Board should consider how it would pay legal costs to the defendant, if requested, since there will be few, if any, remaining GHPOA funds to make payment and the insurance carrier most likely wouldn’t cover it.
b) I assume the Board’s attorney is Mr. Braun Hamstead of Charles Town, WV. Has the Board consulted with other law firms to ascertain whether the quoted costs are reasonable and whether they feel the GHPOA has a winnable case against Mr. Yuen. High dollars are involved so this proposed expenditure warrants getting at least one, if not two or more other opinions and estimates. If other attorneys were consulted and fully apprised of the situation, and agreed with Mr. Hamstead on the viability of the case and provided cost estimates, then this information should be shared with the membership.
c) The letter stated, “This action will also support our future ability to collect monies from non-members for their shared cost of maintaining our common property.” Collecting monies from non-paying members was not included in the proposal and only briefly mentioned in the letter. The ballot only mentioned enforcing and supporting the covenants, not amending the covenants (if at all possible) in order to impose collections on non-members. In essence, this doesn’t seem to be a part of the proposal.
Commercialization: The letter states that “Your Board is convinced if commercial activity is not curtailed now it will increase.” The Board alleges that “There are some members who welcome the commercial activity. They look to profit from using their property for commercial activity. They may or may not know the law….” I don’t think any of us expect to profit from what the Board indicates is “commercial activity.” To my knowledge, there isn’t any commercialization at that property, but the Board may want to consider all the businesses (noted below) that are already in Glen Haven. Also, it is unclear which law is violated. The By-laws and Covenants do not prohibit a person or company from owning an investment property in Glen Haven and renting it to whomever one wants for whatever duration one chooses. Mr. Yuen is renting the property to families or individuals (friends/roommates) who stay for perhaps an extended weekend, a week, two weeks, etc.—sleeping, eating, watching TV, swimming, etc. They may go shopping or visit the local sites. I believe most residents in this neighborhood do this as well. They don’t engage in “commercial activities” on the premises or in the neighborhood. There is no monetary exchange for commodities or services. “Clients or customers” are not coming in and out of the neighborhood. Unless the Board knows otherwise, there is no business transacted by the people renting the property at 80 Natalie Lane. Furthermore, nowhere is it stated in any of the Glen Haven documents that rental properties cannot be advertised on the Internet. This is the electronic age. Real estate agents advertise Glen Haven properties and amenities for sale and rent all the time on the Multiple Listing Service and otherwise.
Past and Present Businesses: The Covenants for Sections 1, 1A, 2, and 3 state that the homes are to be used for residential purposes, with the exception of “the practice of medicine by licensed medical doctors.” It seems that the previous and current Boards have shown no concern with several other homeowners who had businesses within their homes or on their properties that generated income and outside traffic. One current Board member had a kennel and bred dogs. This business has recently closed, but not because of Board action. Another homeowner, also a former Board president and member, has a machinist business that involves daily UPS/FedEx
pickups and deliveries. Likewise, another homeowner, a real estate broker, has had an on-going business for many years. Another Board member with several garages rented space for boats, etc. For the most part, these businesses existed since early development. Along with these, there have been or currently are a mobile pet grooming service, a picture-framing business, a pest control service, and construction/builder/handy-man businesses (both David Jewell, a current Board member, and Bruce Schauer, a former renter, have provided numerous services and construction projects for the Board). While living here, Bruce built Mr. Yuen’s house and worked on many other homes and built decks on river lots. This list is not inclusive. All these business owners have or currently generate income working in or from their homes. Again, to my knowledge, the renters at 80 Natalie Lane are not engaged in any income-producing activities.
Until his death, Mr. Mason, developer and author of the By-laws and Covenants, lived in Glen Haven amongst all these business owners. Neither he nor the respective Boards took any action toward these neighbors. In fact, Mr. Mason, in addition to building houses and digging septic holes and fields, etc., held the mortgages of many homeowners, perhaps some of you; he too was a businessman running his business from his Glen Haven home.
Landlords: Several other property owners, including the current Board President, rent houses which generate income. These too are investment properties. The Covenants do not require properties to be owner occupied or formerly owner-occupied nor do they define the lease term for rental properties. To my knowledge, a lease can be for any term (a long weekend, one week, six months, a year, etc.) that is mutually agreed upon between the landlord and renter. Nor do the By-laws or Covenants define “renter”; thus, it seems that a family or an individual or friends/roommates may rent a house in Glen Haven. Although I have limited knowledge of real estate practices, Mr. Yuen’s activity seems to be a landlord-tenant relationship and not a “commercial activity.” Except for the rental term, the other landlords and Mr. Yuen seem to be doing the same thing.
However, the Covenants state, “No lot or building shall be used for any other than a one-family residence…” There is at least one home that has been remodeled to accommodate separate families—the owner and a tenant. Another property owner rented a room to a past tenant. There may be others doing similar things as well. Moreover, the Covenants also state that “Garages or carports or car shelters, if built, must be permanently attached to the residence or cabin.” Not only are there detached garages throughout these sections, but at least two properties have residential units over the detached garages. One is owned by a current Board member. It seems that these properties are in violation of the Covenants and may have other violations if appropriate permits were not obtained.
Teleworkers: There are a number of public and private teleworkers in Glen Haven. I and several other people are former or current government workers who teleworked or are teleworking two or more days a week in their homes instead of commuting to their official sites. The official teleworking agreement specifies office hours and a designated office space with the similar office equipment that is used at the official site--this could be interpreted as an extension of a government office and a partial non-residential use. While teleworking, I traveled extensively and had a limo/shuttle service from Winchester available to me. I mention this because I understand a Board member instructed a River Riders driver not to come into the neighborhood to pick up and deliver renters to the Yuen house. This was inappropriate and unkind to treat visitors in our neighborhood this way. The Glen Haven documents do not forbid a homeowner, visitor, or renter (short term or otherwise) to request a shuttle/limo/taxi service to pick up or deliver to house addresses in Glen Haven. The FedEx vans and UPS trucks make numerous pick-ups/deliveries daily to homes. USPS delivers daily, trash trucks are here weekly, and service trucks and vans are here frequently.
Use of Amenities: The letter states that “use of our common property is being marketed to the general public by this commercial activity in violation of our by-laws…This is impacting the ability of our members to use and enjoy our common property.” It’s unclear to me how the By-laws are violated since there is no reference to marketing. However, the By-laws do state that “Any person renting the property of a member, in good standing, is entitled to the privileges of using the boat ramp, pavilion, roads and park area.” Moreover, it is difficult to understand how any renter(s) standing or sitting at a table in the empty pavilion, standing on the ramp, walking along the roads, or playing in the ball field impacts “the ability of members to use and enjoy our common property” anymore than any of the residents of the neighborhood.
Meanwhile, Article XIII of the By-laws permits the use of the boat dock, ramp, and pavilion by outside groups. The requirements are a donation and a signed hold-harmless agreement by the sponsoring member for insurance purposes. There is no screening of these groups’ attendees such as that with a rental application. Some of their guests walk around the neighborhood. Some have returned not knowing that the facilities were not available to the general public, although it appears due to the GHPOA’s tax status that this is not prohibited.
In summary, there are Covenants in which several residents, including some past and present Board officers and members, are in violation. Upon looking at this list, one could surmise that if one is a Board member, they are not in violation. One could also surmise that if someone is not liked and does something different in the Board’s opinion although in compliance, then the Board will make every effort to bring legal action to the detriment of the GHPOA’s financial survival. If the Board decides to proceed with a law suit, then it seems that they should be imposing equal treatment against the other property owners, including Board members, who are in violation.
I don’t expect that any Board member is going to be happy with what I’ve said, but I wanted the rationale behind my voting choice to be known. The ballot didn’t provide me any other choice except to vote as I did.
Respectfully,
/S/ (lou Thompson)
Lou Thompson
304-876-7077
louthom3@comcast.net
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
GHPOA
44 Glen Haven
Harpers Ferry, WV 25425
Dear GHPOA Board of Directors:
This responds to the January 10, 2014, letter from the GHPOA Board of Directors (Board) seeking the membership’s approval to enforce the GHPOA Protective Covenants and Restrictions (Covenants) at a proposed cost of $30,000.00 to bring suit against the property owner at 80 Natalie Lane. Although my ballot was timely submitted, I still want the Board to know the reasons for my decision. This letter explains my vote.
I have lived over 15 years in Glen Haven and conclude that past and current Boards have deemed nonconforming activities carried out by themselves and other residents to be acceptable practices. Therefore, I voted “No” because I perceive it to be a misuse of GHPOA funds for an action without merit. The GHPOA membership fees are to be used for the continued management and oversight of the common roads, buildings, and grounds of Glen Haven and expenditure on the proposed court action could result in the demise of the GHPOA.
In dissenting, I am not attempting to undermine the Board, but I respect Mr. Yuen’s right to own and rent property in Glen Haven. I, along with all other owners, have the same property rights. I also have the right to assume that as a dues-paying member, GHPOA funds will be available to cover most, if not all, future expenses for the common areas and facilities. In spite of my vote, I will continue to pay annual dues to help keep the GHPOA a viable organization. However, to the extent that I have any control, I do not want any portion of my current 2013 dues or future dues used for this “legal action” budget line item. I do believe in complying with the Covenants, but it seems the property at 80 Natalie Lane is not a valid Board issue. Thus, this letter (I apologize for its length only) is a reminder of the conduct and inaction, although not inclusive, of previous and current Boards that have managed the GHPOA. I would hope that you’ll read to the end as it points to the Board’s targeting one property owner while it seems to show no concern for several other property owners with obvious violations.
Glen Haven is an insular riverfront neighborhood composed of an educationally, racially, and economically diverse group of individuals and families. Therefore, I don’t take pleasure in writing this letter, but the legal proposal is not only detrimental to the fiscal stability of the GHPOA, but to the community’s health and safety as well. Unfortunately, this property use issue has engulfed the entire community pitting Board against community, community against Board, neighbor against neighbor, and friend against friend. Sometimes people’s emotions flair and some people respond irrationally; some may be more irrational than others. This is not a threat from me so don’t publicize that it is; it is a perception. Someone may get hurt and it won’t be Mr. Yuen or his renters who will have caused it or done it. It’ll be one of these other neighbors going beyond the realm of reasoning, taking the law into their own hands. The longer this continues, the more divisive the community becomes with little chance of healing. Moreover, if this goes to court, this Glen Haven neighborhood will be the “biggest loser” since there will be little or no GHPOA funds to manage the common facilities and areas.
In regard to the property, it is my perception that the renters of Mr. Yuen’s house are not taking anything from this community. One of these renters may like the neighborhood so much that they will want to buy here. Instead, the animosity and hatred within Glen Haven has brought fear and contempt for one another which have not been caused by the actions of renters in the Yuen property. The owner or renter who is ostracized may be the person who will call the fire department, offer medical assistance, help a child or ailing spouse or parent, provide transportation, etc. Of course, we must be aware of our surroundings and forever vigilant for our safety and well being, but let’s not continue to breed hate and anger and destroy this community because our opinions differ. Ultimately, the Board has control over how far this issue will go. Having said this, I’m providing my reasons for casting a “No” vote on the ballot.
Attorney Costs for Legal Action Proposal:
a) According to the proposal, the Board’s “lawyer has requested a $10,000 retainer to go to court and enforce our mutual property rights. He has estimated that legal action could take up to an additional $20,000 to go to completion ($30,000, total). Should we prevail, there is a good possibility we can recoup our legal expenses and perhaps some damages.” Regrettably, I don’t have the understanding of the law that many Board members apparently do, but I find it difficult to understand what has occurred to the GHPOA that the Board would expect to recoup damages. Hopefully this was not stated to encourage more members to endorse using the limited GHPOA general funds in expectation of recovering even more money. The proposal also states, “We have many things going for us….” That may be so, but they are unknown to this member and I suspect others. On the other hand, the Board also has a lot of things going against it which is why I voted as I did. More importantly, if the verdict is unfavorable to the GHPOA, the Board should consider how it would pay legal costs to the defendant, if requested, since there will be few, if any, remaining GHPOA funds to make payment and the insurance carrier most likely wouldn’t cover it.
b) I assume the Board’s attorney is Mr. Braun Hamstead of Charles Town, WV. Has the Board consulted with other law firms to ascertain whether the quoted costs are reasonable and whether they feel the GHPOA has a winnable case against Mr. Yuen. High dollars are involved so this proposed expenditure warrants getting at least one, if not two or more other opinions and estimates. If other attorneys were consulted and fully apprised of the situation, and agreed with Mr. Hamstead on the viability of the case and provided cost estimates, then this information should be shared with the membership.
c) The letter stated, “This action will also support our future ability to collect monies from non-members for their shared cost of maintaining our common property.” Collecting monies from non-paying members was not included in the proposal and only briefly mentioned in the letter. The ballot only mentioned enforcing and supporting the covenants, not amending the covenants (if at all possible) in order to impose collections on non-members. In essence, this doesn’t seem to be a part of the proposal.
Commercialization: The letter states that “Your Board is convinced if commercial activity is not curtailed now it will increase.” The Board alleges that “There are some members who welcome the commercial activity. They look to profit from using their property for commercial activity. They may or may not know the law….” I don’t think any of us expect to profit from what the Board indicates is “commercial activity.” To my knowledge, there isn’t any commercialization at that property, but the Board may want to consider all the businesses (noted below) that are already in Glen Haven. Also, it is unclear which law is violated. The By-laws and Covenants do not prohibit a person or company from owning an investment property in Glen Haven and renting it to whomever one wants for whatever duration one chooses. Mr. Yuen is renting the property to families or individuals (friends/roommates) who stay for perhaps an extended weekend, a week, two weeks, etc.—sleeping, eating, watching TV, swimming, etc. They may go shopping or visit the local sites. I believe most residents in this neighborhood do this as well. They don’t engage in “commercial activities” on the premises or in the neighborhood. There is no monetary exchange for commodities or services. “Clients or customers” are not coming in and out of the neighborhood. Unless the Board knows otherwise, there is no business transacted by the people renting the property at 80 Natalie Lane. Furthermore, nowhere is it stated in any of the Glen Haven documents that rental properties cannot be advertised on the Internet. This is the electronic age. Real estate agents advertise Glen Haven properties and amenities for sale and rent all the time on the Multiple Listing Service and otherwise.
Past and Present Businesses: The Covenants for Sections 1, 1A, 2, and 3 state that the homes are to be used for residential purposes, with the exception of “the practice of medicine by licensed medical doctors.” It seems that the previous and current Boards have shown no concern with several other homeowners who had businesses within their homes or on their properties that generated income and outside traffic. One current Board member had a kennel and bred dogs. This business has recently closed, but not because of Board action. Another homeowner, also a former Board president and member, has a machinist business that involves daily UPS/FedEx
pickups and deliveries. Likewise, another homeowner, a real estate broker, has had an on-going business for many years. Another Board member with several garages rented space for boats, etc. For the most part, these businesses existed since early development. Along with these, there have been or currently are a mobile pet grooming service, a picture-framing business, a pest control service, and construction/builder/handy-man businesses (both David Jewell, a current Board member, and Bruce Schauer, a former renter, have provided numerous services and construction projects for the Board). While living here, Bruce built Mr. Yuen’s house and worked on many other homes and built decks on river lots. This list is not inclusive. All these business owners have or currently generate income working in or from their homes. Again, to my knowledge, the renters at 80 Natalie Lane are not engaged in any income-producing activities.
Until his death, Mr. Mason, developer and author of the By-laws and Covenants, lived in Glen Haven amongst all these business owners. Neither he nor the respective Boards took any action toward these neighbors. In fact, Mr. Mason, in addition to building houses and digging septic holes and fields, etc., held the mortgages of many homeowners, perhaps some of you; he too was a businessman running his business from his Glen Haven home.
Landlords: Several other property owners, including the current Board President, rent houses which generate income. These too are investment properties. The Covenants do not require properties to be owner occupied or formerly owner-occupied nor do they define the lease term for rental properties. To my knowledge, a lease can be for any term (a long weekend, one week, six months, a year, etc.) that is mutually agreed upon between the landlord and renter. Nor do the By-laws or Covenants define “renter”; thus, it seems that a family or an individual or friends/roommates may rent a house in Glen Haven. Although I have limited knowledge of real estate practices, Mr. Yuen’s activity seems to be a landlord-tenant relationship and not a “commercial activity.” Except for the rental term, the other landlords and Mr. Yuen seem to be doing the same thing.
However, the Covenants state, “No lot or building shall be used for any other than a one-family residence…” There is at least one home that has been remodeled to accommodate separate families—the owner and a tenant. Another property owner rented a room to a past tenant. There may be others doing similar things as well. Moreover, the Covenants also state that “Garages or carports or car shelters, if built, must be permanently attached to the residence or cabin.” Not only are there detached garages throughout these sections, but at least two properties have residential units over the detached garages. One is owned by a current Board member. It seems that these properties are in violation of the Covenants and may have other violations if appropriate permits were not obtained.
Teleworkers: There are a number of public and private teleworkers in Glen Haven. I and several other people are former or current government workers who teleworked or are teleworking two or more days a week in their homes instead of commuting to their official sites. The official teleworking agreement specifies office hours and a designated office space with the similar office equipment that is used at the official site--this could be interpreted as an extension of a government office and a partial non-residential use. While teleworking, I traveled extensively and had a limo/shuttle service from Winchester available to me. I mention this because I understand a Board member instructed a River Riders driver not to come into the neighborhood to pick up and deliver renters to the Yuen house. This was inappropriate and unkind to treat visitors in our neighborhood this way. The Glen Haven documents do not forbid a homeowner, visitor, or renter (short term or otherwise) to request a shuttle/limo/taxi service to pick up or deliver to house addresses in Glen Haven. The FedEx vans and UPS trucks make numerous pick-ups/deliveries daily to homes. USPS delivers daily, trash trucks are here weekly, and service trucks and vans are here frequently.
Use of Amenities: The letter states that “use of our common property is being marketed to the general public by this commercial activity in violation of our by-laws…This is impacting the ability of our members to use and enjoy our common property.” It’s unclear to me how the By-laws are violated since there is no reference to marketing. However, the By-laws do state that “Any person renting the property of a member, in good standing, is entitled to the privileges of using the boat ramp, pavilion, roads and park area.” Moreover, it is difficult to understand how any renter(s) standing or sitting at a table in the empty pavilion, standing on the ramp, walking along the roads, or playing in the ball field impacts “the ability of members to use and enjoy our common property” anymore than any of the residents of the neighborhood.
Meanwhile, Article XIII of the By-laws permits the use of the boat dock, ramp, and pavilion by outside groups. The requirements are a donation and a signed hold-harmless agreement by the sponsoring member for insurance purposes. There is no screening of these groups’ attendees such as that with a rental application. Some of their guests walk around the neighborhood. Some have returned not knowing that the facilities were not available to the general public, although it appears due to the GHPOA’s tax status that this is not prohibited.
In summary, there are Covenants in which several residents, including some past and present Board officers and members, are in violation. Upon looking at this list, one could surmise that if one is a Board member, they are not in violation. One could also surmise that if someone is not liked and does something different in the Board’s opinion although in compliance, then the Board will make every effort to bring legal action to the detriment of the GHPOA’s financial survival. If the Board decides to proceed with a law suit, then it seems that they should be imposing equal treatment against the other property owners, including Board members, who are in violation.
I don’t expect that any Board member is going to be happy with what I’ve said, but I wanted the rationale behind my voting choice to be known. The ballot didn’t provide me any other choice except to vote as I did.
Respectfully,
/S/ (lou Thompson)
Lou Thompson
304-876-7077
louthom3@comcast.net
