Trees and Views in Cape George

                                 

June 22, 2015

RE:  Trees and Views  in Cape George
 
Dear Cape George Resident,

We are all concerned about views in this beautiful community and I believe most residents favor trimming vegetation to enhance views as the governing documents encourage:

3.2   PLANT MAINTENANCE
 Members are encouraged to trim all planted 
 vegetation so as to promote wildlife 
 habitat, prevent landslides and erosion, 

 maintain natural beauty, and prevent  
 neighboring views from being blocked. To  
 prevent unsightly disfigurement and/or    

 weakening of tree structure, trees should be 
 pruned by windowing or thinning rather than 
 topping or other forms of tree mutilation.
 

In spite of this clear, reasonable guideline for windowing and thinning, the Board is now targeting trees as potential hedge violations subject to an 8 foot height restriction. So an old group of trees can now magically be deemed to be in a row and designated as a hedge. What is a “row” and “hedge” you ask? The Board asserts “any TWO adjacent trees with commingling branches” may be deemed a hedge!
 
Suppose you’re trying to sell a house and someone wants you to do something about the commingling branches of TWO adjacent trees.  They see your ‘for sale’ sign and quickly lodge a complaint for a “hedge violation”.  The house sale will be up a creek (or tree) until you act and the Board declares your trees to be a non-hedge! 
               

FICTION?  Absolutely not! In 2003 a group led by a Board member tried to do this although she was forced to recuse herself from the voting. The other Board members, after consulting the Board’s attorney though, voted 4-0 to dismiss the complaint against six 30-plus year-old trees. Their ruling cited the lack of "timeliness" of the complaint and “irreparable harm” to a member’s property. 
 

In 2015, the same, now former, Board member, again lodged the complaint against the same  44-year old trees. This time though the owner had just passed away and the house was for sale. The current Board ignored the 2003 ruling and re-issued the violation. The complainant even offered to pay all expenses but only if all the trees were cut to the ground; otherwise she would contribute nothing to help.

“Hold on”, the owner objected. What about Cape George's guideline against “tree mutilation” and the irreparable harm to my property that the 2003 ruling mentioned. What about the “windowing and thinning” that the guideline suggests? What about a compromise? Here’s one:  Since I’m trying to sell my house, I’ll cut three trees entirely and thin the rest to enhance views.

Response?  A deafening silence from the Board. To make the Board’s bias crystal clear, the Board President wrote in the May 2015 newsletter that the complaining party made a “serious” attempt to settle the dispute.

   
He omits entirely any mention of the owner's compromise offer mailed  personally to him and the Board. Sixteen residents who petitioned against the Board’s extreme stance are also ignored. 
 
Multiple  attorneys, including the Colony's own attorney, have counseled against the  Board's actions both in 2003 and now again in 2015. So residents facing similar complaints can be assured they’re on firm legal ground in opposing such actions by the Board. For more info or to view attorney opinions, contact derykus@gmail.com or (360)344-2051.
 
These  tactics by the Board in favor of the complaining party's extreme "cut 'em to the ground" offer ignores the windowing and thinning guideline; does not promote compromise to preserve trees and open views; and is certainly not good governance.
     
If the issue of preserving trees per stated guidelines, encouraging compromise, and dealing equitably and transparently are important to you, please contact the Board and make your opinions known. I would also recommend supporting the current proposal for a mediation group within the community to help resolve disputes before they become divisive and result in legal action.
 
Thank you.
 
Sincerely,
Charles DeRykus   (Colony resident)
 
P.S.  The Board declined to specify precisely what would remove the violation so the owner went ahead and cut 3 trees to the ground and paid the $2000 bill on her own. Cape George’s manager asked to be present; held up cutting for 15 minutes; then was reportedly seen in a discussion with the former Board complainant up the hill. After returning, he insisted the owner cut a 4th tree to the ground or the violation would not be lifted. These events contradict statements in the July newsletter that "the Board did not dictate any solution and left the method of hedge resolution up to the member's own preference".