July 29, 2015
RE: Trees - Board's August 2015 newsletter
Dear Cape George
Resident,
We are writing in
response to the President’s remarks in the latest Cape George newsletter for
August. Again, we want to emphasize that
we believe most residents, as we do, support 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.
The President, in the August 2015 newsletter quotes two governing documents but omits any mention of this clear 3.2 directive. Moreover the Board now asserts any TWO
adjacent trees with commingling branches may be deemed a hedge and subject
to an 8 ft. height restriction!
This is the
Board’s interpretation of the hedge
rules he quotes. This interpretation is not found in the governing documents at
all nor did members "vote" to approve such an extreme stance. The Board
apparently believes their interpretation of the rules must prevail and members
should not question the Board's judgment.
In the recent
case of the hedge violation on Sunset Blvd, the owner was forced to remove entirely (or cut to 8 ft.) 4 of the 6 trees targeted trees. As noted, cutting
mature trees to 8 ft is a euphemism for killing the trees as any arborist will
testify. So, if shrubs are deemed a hedge, the rule imposes a "haircut"; however, mature trees cut to 8 ft. get the "death penalty". This is NOT the “windowing and thinning” that 3.2 advises.
We also mentioned in
our letter, that multiple attorneys have counseled the Board against taking
such extreme stances both in 2003 and now again in 2015. If you’d like to see
actual legal opinions, contact: derykus@gmail.com or 360-344-2051.
The President writes the Board is
concerned our letter is “filled with misstatements of fact”. Yet he does not
clarify what facts were misstated. He doesn’t defend the Board’s extreme
views other than citing vague rules that contain no mention of “TWO trees
commingling to become a hedge”; does not refute strong legal arguments against
the Board’s actions; and doesn’t promote compromise or mediation. This is
neither transparency nor good governance.
The President
concludes by suggesting that dissatisfied members propose an amendment at the
monthly Board meeting. The reality is the issue is more than a vague building
rule – it’s the Board’s extreme interpretation
of an existing rule to effectively compel members to kill trees rather than thinning and
windowing them to enhance views.
Further, I believe the monthly Board meetings are an entirely inadequate framework for discussion of these
issues with only a 2 min. opportunity to speak; very few members even attending
meetings; and an obvious lack of even-handedness in the treatment of opposing
views. Viewpoints differing from the Board’s are excluded from the newsletter
for instance.
A special Board meeting to exclusively address the tree issue is a far better alternative. The meeting should be mediated to ensure civility; reasonable time limits set for speakers; and proposals given fair hearings. A summary report, inclusive of all views, should be published in the newsletter and amendments put to a vote.
These issues deserve
an open, ongoing discussion – not a short “soapbox” and certainly not the
exclusive opinion of the Board in a monthly newsletter. Cape George members
deserve better.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Charles DeRykus (Colony resident)
