- Please note: There may be typos, etc., but the story needs to be told.
- This article is difficult to write - organize. I've met with the resident involved, and gathered a volume of information, and fact. The resident appears frustrated with this board, their drama, failure to follow our governing documents, stand by their individual words, and their general allowance of public harassment against anyone who questions them. We'll start at the very beginning.
On December 3, 2015, the resident walks into the WPA office to register a complaint regarding a shed, and unsightly storage of items. He is advised by the office secretary to write his complaint, and she will see that the board receives it.
The resident does not receive any formal recognition of his complaint from the board. He does on two separate occasions, have opportunity to speak directly to board members DeMarchi, and McMillin. According to the resident, DeMarchi takes a look at the shed, and states that it is totally NOT architecturally acceptable. When speaking to McMillin, the resident is informed that the shed in question was never permitted. Still, nothing happens, and there is no response from the board. The resident gathers the ARC report from the January 2016 WRAGG, and the following information from our governing documents. Both items are presented here.
January 2016 WRAGG ARC REPORT:
Finally, on March 14, 2016, the resident sends the following letter to the board, with pictures.
January 2016 WRAGG ARC REPORT:
Wedgefield Plantation has been a desirable home
location for many years. Our Covenants, By-laws, and
Policy manual requirements provide an assurance to our
residents that certain standards will be maintained.
Covenant, Item 6 “It shall be the responsibility of each lot owner to prevent the development of any unclean, unsightly or unkempt condition of buildings or grounds on such lot which shall tend to substantially decrease the beauty of the neighborhood as a while or the specific area.”
Covenant, Item 7 “No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on upon any lot, nor shall anything be done thereon tending to cause embarrassment, discomfort, annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood.
Covenant, Item 16 “No fuel tanks or similar receptacle may be exposed to view....”
Covenant, Item 17 “Each lot owner must construct....and hide from view....Garbage receptacle and yard maintenance equipment...”
By-Law, Article IX COMMITTEES, Section 3 “Wedgefield Plantation Architectural Review Committee...shall have the exclusive authority, subject to the appeals procedure, to review and approve or disapprove of any and all new construction and of any and all renovations, alterations and modification to existing structures...”
Policy Manual, Section III, ARC provides all the criteria and guidelines needed to obtain a WPA permit for construction, alterations and modifications to existing structures.
All storage sheds must be approved by the WP ARC before it can be constructed or placed on a lot.
Section 4.02.18 ARC - SHEDS:
Covenant, Item 6 “It shall be the responsibility of each lot owner to prevent the development of any unclean, unsightly or unkempt condition of buildings or grounds on such lot which shall tend to substantially decrease the beauty of the neighborhood as a while or the specific area.”
Covenant, Item 7 “No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on upon any lot, nor shall anything be done thereon tending to cause embarrassment, discomfort, annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood.
Covenant, Item 16 “No fuel tanks or similar receptacle may be exposed to view....”
Covenant, Item 17 “Each lot owner must construct....and hide from view....Garbage receptacle and yard maintenance equipment...”
By-Law, Article IX COMMITTEES, Section 3 “Wedgefield Plantation Architectural Review Committee...shall have the exclusive authority, subject to the appeals procedure, to review and approve or disapprove of any and all new construction and of any and all renovations, alterations and modification to existing structures...”
Policy Manual, Section III, ARC provides all the criteria and guidelines needed to obtain a WPA permit for construction, alterations and modifications to existing structures.
All storage sheds must be approved by the WP ARC before it can be constructed or placed on a lot.
Section 4.02.18 ARC - SHEDS:
Storage Sheds: All sheds will be held to the following restrictions:
-
Maximum area 180 square feet provided
-
Total square footage may not exceed .6 % of total lot size. Example: 20,000 sq.
ft. lot may be permitted a 120 sq. ft. shed.
-
No length or width may exceed 16 feet as measured to the exterior of shed.
-
Maximum height of 9 feet measured to the midpoint of the roof slope.
-
Color of siding and roof to blend with the house colors.
-
Should be placed as close to the house as possible to avoid blocking neighbors
view and/or creating an eyesore for the neighbors.
-
May be fenced in but fencing should blend in with the house colors.
-
The ARC policies with regard to shed architecture and construction are flexible
but will be used to keep the community as attractive as possible.
Finally, on March 14, 2016, the resident sends the following letter to the board, with pictures.
On March 15, 2016, the resident attends the March WPA Board Meeting, and speaks during the resident comment period. I've listened to the tape of the meeting. My observations, and comments follow in red print.
The resident starts out reminding the board that he has lived in Wedgefield for 36 years, has written to the board twice regarding what he views as a shed violation on lot 225, provided pictures to the board, finds the conditions on the lot - and around the shed to be unsightly, and notes that he hasn't received a response in 3 1/2 months. He goes on to remind the board that there are three trailers parked in the yard, 3 gas tanks stored outside, lot 225 has trespassed on his neighbor's drive way and lawn to get some of these trailers onto his property, the shed architecturally violates ARC rules, affects over 20 different home owners, and appears to be placed over the homeowners property and on to golf course property. It appears the property owner has studied our governing documents because he cites several sections including those provided in the Wragg. In the end he asks the board "TO DO THE RIGHT THING."
As I listened to the board's response I felt that they were abusive to the resident at times, cocky, and I was disgusted at their apparent evasive behavior regarding enforcement of our governing documents. What do I mean? First, Garrison agrees that 2 trailers on a residential lot are all that are allowed. Yet, 3 1/2 months later there are still three trailers. Later, it is stated that if the gas tank isn't enclosed that they will send a letter. Again, when? Board Members, McMillin and DeMarchi previously, verbally told the resident that the shed was out of compliance, and had never even been permitted! Yet, as the conversation from the board table continues the shed is OK. As our resident continues to call the situation on lot 225 an eyesore Garrison says, "there are a lot of places here like that"! Really???? Residents, this is the whole problem in Wedgefield! Your board turns a blind eye to our governing documents, fails to up hold the standards provided in those documents, and has left Wedgefield in shambles! What is worse, is that on occasion, they decide to enforce around all this mess, on a rare few, with absolutely no consistency. This board made this discussion the good (only on the part of the resident), the bad, and the ugly! What do I mean by the ugly? Garrison turns the tables on the resident as he speaks again about lot 225 being an eyesore, and says that he supposes that people would find the boat and trailer parked in his yard (the resident speaker)an eyesore!!!!! Really????? The resident has one boat and trailer. He meets the requirements. Your board ADMITTEDLY has done nothing - NOT ONLY ABOUT LOT 225, BUT REMEMBER "there are a lot of places here like that".
It should be noted that I did a little research. First, the resident made his first complaint, as instructed in writing, at the office in December 2015. I checked the approved minutes from December 2015 through February 2016, and every other complaint except this one was noted. Additionally, after the ugly, sometimes smart mouth handling of the resident during the March meeting, this is all that was reported in the March 2016 sanitized, approved minutes.
(Resident name removed) advised the board about a complaint he had sent to the office
concerning a shed and the three trailers on a resident’s property. Keith Johnson stated the resident has sent in
his application and has been fined for not having been approved before the shed
was put on the property. The resident
has been informed the shed has to be painted.
Bob Garrison stated that he didn’t know about the trailers but he will
contact the resident and address the issue.
The resident points out more problems with his March interaction with the board. First, why did DeMarchi, and McMillin fail to tell the board, from the board table, what they had told the resident? My opinion, they don't think, or fill their board responsible duties, as individual thinking people, elected to serve all members fairly. We'll get back to our resident's concerns. President Walton had stated that the lot corners were located, and the shed was on the lot with 25 ft to spare. The resident has visited county offices, and secured copies of the following documents. Using the information, the resident paced the distance. It appears that a large percent of the building resides over the property line, and sits on the golf course property. Our resident has years of experience in this type of measurement. He has left word with the golf course management. Here are the two documents he used as his guide.
The resident points out more problems with his March interaction with the board. First, why did DeMarchi, and McMillin fail to tell the board, from the board table, what they had told the resident? My opinion, they don't think, or fill their board responsible duties, as individual thinking people, elected to serve all members fairly. We'll get back to our resident's concerns. President Walton had stated that the lot corners were located, and the shed was on the lot with 25 ft to spare. The resident has visited county offices, and secured copies of the following documents. Using the information, the resident paced the distance. It appears that a large percent of the building resides over the property line, and sits on the golf course property. Our resident has years of experience in this type of measurement. He has left word with the golf course management. Here are the two documents he used as his guide.
After the March meeting, Garrison spoke to the resident, who reports that Garrison said that it looks fine to him, but if it blocks the view of anyone it would have to be moved. This said, despite how the shed is located on the property - partially on the golf course, and doesn't architecturally match the house. The roof is gambrel style, and the house hip style. The trailers, and the gas cylinders - it all flies in the face of the governing documents. How does a ARC committee misjudge distance, and ignore the regs?
The resident has discussed the situation with property owners adjoining the shed property. He was allowed to take pictures from the patio of one of the neighbors, and the shed blocks their view of the golf course.
The resident has discussed the situation with property owners adjoining the shed property. He was allowed to take pictures from the patio of one of the neighbors, and the shed blocks their view of the golf course.
There are reports of gas tanks, and other items piled against the shed. There is a gas tank used for the home which is unsightly. These all violate our governing documents. The fact that the offender violates property lines, and uses their neighbor's drive way, and crosses the line to drive to the shed area takes the cake. A few more photographs indicating the problems.
The resident reminds us that the listed deviations violate Covenant items 6, 7, 16, and 17, By-law Article IX, and section III of the Policy Manual.
I hope that this resident continues to follow this. Why? In my view, Wedgefield is falling apart one violation at a time. We bought into an HOA for consistency of property maintenance, and enforcement of a set of governing documents that would "keep Wedgefield beautiful", and maintain our property values. I'm told that "Wedgefield was the place to be." I'm also told "that isn't the case anymore". I care. Do you? This resident cares! It is an insult to anyone's intelligence to insult a person with the ridiculousness we face from this board.
