Minutes for January 6, 2006
Back to Home Page
DRAFT
Workshop
Meeting
Friday, January 6,
2006
1:00 p.m. – Building D&E
Madame Chairman Wilma Weglein called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.
Ms. Weglein requested prayer for Mr. Helmerich and his family especially his children in Costa Rica, and for our servicemen who are serving all over the world. Amen
Mr. Carillion led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Ms. McCahan called the roll. Mr. Bleau and Mr. Smith, Board of Trustees, were excused.. Mr. Malek was present as counsel.
Code Enforcement Board members present were Julius Santa Maria, Ann Petrovich, John Keegan, James Tirone, Kenneth Fricke, Mary Firlein, and Ann Lowry.
ARCC members present were Dick Gee, Robin Phillips, Lillian Richards, and Albert “Dusty” Rhodes.
Ms. Weglein introduced Ken Austin, Code Enforcement Director.
The Board of Trustees agreed to take the agenda Item by item for discussion.
ROOF:
Shingle, tin
pan, vinyl, foam pouted and membrane.
Reference:
The DOR does not specify roof material.
Justification:
DOR Section 2 (A) Requirements for Approval by
ARCC paragraph 2, states, “The said building or other structure is in conformity
and harmony with such written rules as may from time to time be adopted by the ARCC.”
Statement of the approved roof material was made to ensure acceptable material is used. The DOR does not specify approved roof material.
Mr. Hunt commented on the outline the ARCC is currently following. The objective with all nine issues is to compare the ARCC interpretation with the Deed of Restrictions (DOR) and decide through consensus whether the interpretations conform to the DOR, whether it’s an allowable interpretation of the DOT, or whether the issue should go to the voters as an amendment to the DOR. The fourth choice is simply to ditch the rule.
Mr. Austin commented that currently the DOR does not specify among roofing materials. He referred to DOR Section 2 (A) Requirements for Approvals by ARCC Paragraph 2. (Addendum I). Mr. Malek suggested everyone concerned obtain a list of approved roofing materials from the ARCC in the interests of consistency. Ms. Weglein commented Board had received such a list that was effective September 23, 2005. Mr. Bolon commented this issue had come before the Board on previous occasions and it was his impression it was ready to be voted on. Mr. Bailey commented the county had requirements regarding roofs already in place. Mr. Hunt responded the Bay’s DOR could contain stricter requirements than the county’s. Ms. McCahan commented since everyone agreed on the roofing issue, more discussion was unnecessary. Mr. Malek suggested the Board vote on each issue at the next regular meeting. Ms. Weglein moved the question.
CARPORT, PORCH, AND SHED: Constructed out of ALUMINUM, VINYL, or WOOD. (All wood including post & poles must be covered with aluminum or vinyl to match home.)
Reference:
DOR Section
3(a) Architectural Design and Installation Requirements paragraphs 1 & 2 states
“. . . . fabricated of aluminum or other approved material”.
Justification:
DO Section
2(a) Requirements for Approvals by ARCC paragraph 2, states “The said building or
other structure is in conformity and harmony with such written rules as may from time to
time be adopted by the ARCC.” The decision t show additional approved material was
based on the recognition that new types of materials have come into common use since the
last DOR revision.
Mr. Hunt commented the DOR allows “or other materials”. The question becomes whether the Board desires to limit materials to aluminum, vinyl or wood, expand the materials list, or restrict it further. Mr. Bailey seeks language that allows for newer materials as they become available in the marketplace. Mr. Malek responded the current wording provides leeway for the Board to decide what newer materials would be allowed. Mr. Carillion commented the DOR also states the homes are supposed to look “esthetically pleasing”, which is why the current ARCC stands behind covering wood with aluminum and vinyl. Mr. Carillion is concerned that if the carports made of wood are not covered they’ll begin to look like “lean to’s”. Ms McCahan commented on the homes that have been in the Bay for years where the wood was never covered. These homes will have to come “up to code”. Mr. Carillion commented the DOR is specific, and this is the DOR the Bay voted on in 1999. Mr. Santa Maria supported the “Grandfather clause”. Mr. Malek commented it would not apply in this instance. Residents agree to abide by the DOR when they buy in the Bay. The agreement applies when the DOR is amended by vote of a majority of property owners. Mr. Carillion commented that exposed wood was never permitted (as in having obtained a permit). Mr. Malek commented Code Enforcement could cite those properties that had not obtained permits to build with wood, but those with permits in the past would come under “other approved materials.” Mr. Santa Maria commented discussion in a previous meeting established that if the permit did not state that wood posts would be covered, they did not have to be. Ms. Weglein concurred. Mr. Bolon commented the wood posts look very good properly painted. Ms. McCahan commented she was told she had to cover the new wooden porch she built, and if she has to conform to the DOR, so does everyone else.
Mr. Tirone opted for painting the wood. Mr. Malek commented that by the end of the day every property owner still has to conform to the current DOR. Since “or other material” is a problem the Board needs to define “other material” and vote on it definitively. Ms. Firlein is concerned with keeping up the paint on the wood. Mr. Tirone commented Code Enforcement would operate just as it does now. If a violation occurs, it would be reported. Mr. Bailey requested that Code Enforcement be directed to document how many homes have the exposed wood, or wood posts. Ms. Lowry asked if Mr. Bailey meant the Code officer should go about checking wooden posts. Mr. Bailey replied if there weren’t some kind of documentation there was no basis for discussion and action. Ms. Weglein commented this is the last workshop on these issues. The Baord owes it to the ARCC to vote at the next meeting on the issues. Mr. Santa Maria suggested the ARCC assist in compiling addresses of homes in violation and give those addresses to Code Enforcement.
Discussion ensued regarding the procedure that would be used to approve the ARCC recommendations. Ms. Weglein commented they would be discussed in the workshop and voted upon by the Baord of Trustees in a regular meeting.
SKIRTING: Stucco, stone skirting and Hardi board (Hardi board bolts & seams have to be concealed with stucco-type finish.)
Mr. Santa Maria commented Hardi board expands; therefore it should not be used on the outside of the home where it will repeatedly get wet. Mr. Carillion responded there are two types, and the exterior type is guaranteed to last 25 years. The ARCC allowed Hardi board also because it is cheaper to use, specifying dark gray rather than light gray color.
LAMP POST: All homes except on Barefoot Boulevard.
Reference:
DOR Section 3(a) Architectural Design and Installation Requirements
paragraph 14 states, “A lamppost approved by the ARCC shall be installed in front of
all residences and maintained in operational order.”
Justification:
Barefoot Boulevard is well lighted by community street
lighting making the need for individual home lights not necessary.
Mr. Hunt commented the DOR states, “A lamp post approved by the ARCC shall be installed in front of all residences and maintained in operational order.” This is problematic. While Barefoot Boulevard is well lighted and the need for lampposts there may be diminished, the language in the DOR does not include an option. The Board may want to consider taking this issue to the voters for a change to the DOR. Ms. McCahan commented the language needs to be changed to read the lampposts must be illuminated from dusk to dawn. Mr. Malek suggested the Baord plan on which issues were the most important. The residents balk at too many changes at once in the DOR. Ms. Weglein commented DOR amendments should be on one sheet in large print. Mr. Gee requested DOR amendment mailings be scheduled when the snowbirds are in residence. Ms. Donohue commented on solar lampposts. Mr. Carillion responded the ARCC would approve solar lampposts.
PRIVACY LANDSCAPING: VINYL or LATTICE can be used on side of carports, around decks, and on property lines.
Reference: DOR
Section 5, Fencing states “Fencing shall not be permitted along any lot line
where drainage canals or swales exist. Where no drainage canals or swales exist along a
lot line, fencing shall be limited to chain link fencing not exceeding four (4) feet in
length.
Justification:
vinyl or lattice
installed such that the installation does not completely enclose an area of the property
is not considered a fence and is allowed as landscaping material.
Mr. Austin commented vinyl or lattice is not considered a fence as long as it does not have gates in it that comprise an enclosure. Mr. Carillion commented the ARCC does not allow wood as a privacy fence. The ARCC allows manufacturers variations in colors in chain link fence. Mr. Carillion advocated vinyl fencing be allowed for fencing because it is easy care and doesn’t rust like galvanized chain link. Ms. Donohue requested “four feet in length” be changed to “four feet in height”. Ms. McCahan questioned fencing only four feet high around a pool. Mr. Carillion responded the county requirements state the fence will be four feet high OR the pool will be screened over. Mr. Malek commented the language in the landscaping portion should be broadened. Mr. Santa Maria commented chain link fence maintains the openness of the landscape. Ms. Weglein commented chain link allows air passage. Mr. Carillion commented the ARCC wants to allow picket fencing, not solid fencing, to maintain airflow. Mr. Tirone and Ms. McCahan concurred the picket fencing is esthetically preferable to chain link. Ms. Weglein commented the fence issue is very important, and because it has to go to the residents for voting in order to change the DOR, would Mr. Malek write the language.
FENCE: 4 FT HIGH CHAIN LINK CAN BE COATED WITH COLORED VINYL
Reference: DOR Section 5, Fencing states,
“Fencing shall not be permitted along any lot
Justification: Allowance of chain link fence with colored
vinyl is a clarification of what
Mr. Hunt commented this section is an ARCC extrapolation to allow the chain link fences to be in manufacturer’s colors (fence dipped in vinyl coating). Ms. Weglein requested Mr. Malek include this language in the chain link item.
DECKS: Must be free standing. Raised decks must have matching guardrails and steps; on ground level decks, railing are allowed. All open decks built within the ‘box” of the home must be skirted to match the home.
Reference: No reference was found in the DOR.
Justification: Definition for deck construction was created to
allow homeowners the
Mr. Carillion commented many of the new homes are coming in with built-in decks and porches. On these homes, the skirting must enclose the whole thing, built in or not. In many of them the Florida room is built in, some of which have jalousie windows. The ARCC is allowing these. Mr. Tirone questioned that some of the new homes have decks built of wood. Mr. Carillion commented the ARCC allows freestanding wooden decks; the decks in the new homes comply with that. An existing home must replace the deck as it was before the hurricanes. Mr. Bolon asked why freestanding decks wouldn’t have to be covered with vinyl or aluminum. Mr. Carillion responded that the freestanding decks commonly used for entertainment purposes are not part of the footprint of the house and are not addressed in the DOR. Mr. Malek commented that right now there is no way to enforce anything regarding decks, so the Board might want to consider an amendment to the DOR to include some sort of language regarding decks.
STEPS: Must be CONCRETE and tied down to all entrances of the house.
Reference: DOR – no reference found.
Justification:
ARCC added concrete and tie down requirements as a safety measure.
Mr. Hunt commented this is basically the creation of the ARCC because there is no reference found in the DOR addressing the materials used for steps. Mr. Malek suggested some sort of language along the lines of the recommended materials the ARCC has already provided to the Board, while also leaving an option open to use modern materials in the future. Mr. Carillion commented that during Hurricane Wilma the fiberglass steps the manufacturers provided blew away, creating a moving hazard. Reinforced concrete stays put. Mr. Tirone asked how concrete steps could be tied down. Mr. Carillion responded they are tied down with expansion bolts connecting the steps with the ground. Eventually all homes will have to conform to this standard.
DRIVEWAYS: Concrete reinforced pavers set in concrete mix are allowed.
Reference: DOR
Section 3(a) Architectural Design and Installation Requirements paragraph 5 states,
“……All driveways and parking areas shall be of poured and reinforced
concrete material.”
Justification:
Concrete reinforced pavers set in concrete mix are considered equivalent in
strength and durability to the DOR requirement “poured and reinforced concrete”.
Mr. Malek declined to answer specifically what materials should be used in reinforced concrete. Mr. Malek quoted the DOR and recommended to the Board that an amendment to the DOR would be in order before exceptions such as “other materials” were made in this particular case by the ARCC. Mr. Carillion commented that Barefoot Bay will also have to get together with Brevard County on the issue of drainage permits before driveways can be widened.
Mr. Keegan asked Mr. Malek if a ‘Grandfather defense” is valid. Mar. Malek responded he would have to refer that question to Mr. Bohne. Mr. Keegan responded he had asked Mr. Bohne, and Mr. Bohne had bounced the question back to the Trustees Board. Mr. Malek commented he could not in any way advise the Code Enforcement Board, and Mr. Bohne would have to contact Mr. Malek.
Mr. Bolon referred to Mr. Bleau’s letter regarding galvanized metal framework. Mr. Carillion responded the owner of a house on Beech Court applied for a permit without specifying the carport and shed would be built of galvanized metal. It was removed.
Ms. Weglein commented on house numbers on carports. She feels this issue should go into the amendments process again. Mr. Carillion addressed the issue of obvious personalized signs depicting homeowner’s name, such as a ketchup bottle with “Heinz” on it. Mr. Carillion likes it, but it’s technically in violation. Ms. Donohue raised the question of garages. Mr. Carillion commented the main problem with garages is boats in them. Mr. Malek commented that if the DOR says there will be no boats on the property, there will be no boats on the property. Mr. Malek cautioned against adding more items to the DOR amendment process at this point.
Mr. Hunt commented an additional five issues came up in discussions with Mr. Austin and Mr. Bolon: preventing sale of property while it is in Code violation; public posting of Code Enforcement Board results; some form of instant fine for parking on the grass; better definition of what constitutes commercial vehicle and RV’s being brought to the property; single family dwelling violations. The definition of “single family residential” is “each lot is hereby restricted to residential use by the owners thereof, their immediate families, lessees, and invitees.” The proposal has been made to amend the DOR to require registration of all occupants and visitors in a dwelling. Mr. Bolon commented that at one address there are 3 couples living in the house with 2 kids. The Florida room is being used as two bedrooms. Mr. Malek commented “single family dwelling” generally applies to the house itself and does not describe “mom, dad, kids, dog”. Language would have to change describing how many persons could live in a dwelling, how many animals could be present, how many vehicles could park at that address.
Ms. McCahan commented on hurricane shutters in the Bay. Unpainted plywood shutters used in a hurricane event are left up for months, and look ugly. Can aluminum shutters be left closed when the occupants are home and it is not hurricane season? Mr. Malek commented this is a DOR amendment issue, and perhaps could be brought up at a later date.
Mr. Carillion requested the Board to address the definition of a lot. Traditionally a lot is a bare piece of land with nothing on it. Since the hurricanes, a problem has arisen where the owner sells with a damaged house on the property. The new owner supposedly intends to demolish the house, but then decides to renovate it. Consequently, the house sits on the property in a damaged condition for longer than the Trustees Board has allowed. One of the problems is that the insurance company “totaled” the house, but Brevard County has not condemned it. Mr. Malek defined a lot as “four corners” whether it has a pile of junk on it or not. Legally it is considered “a lot”. Mr. Malek cited that the house can be placed in violation, Code fines can accrue, and with a system already in place in the District, the new owners are notified that the house has a lien situation attached to it. Mr. Carillion wants to be sure the new owners know the house has to be demolished after they buy it. One way or another, the property has to come into compliance with the DOR in a timely manner.
Mr. Malek commented on a discussion with the auditors regarding financial problems the Bay has been experiencing. His understanding is that [next Tuesday] IMS is coming to assist in pulling the numbers out of the old financial program, putting essential information into the general ledger, and getting things back on track. Mr. Malek complimented Yvonne Claybourne for her role in the success of the audit.
Ms. Weglein entertained a motion to adjourn. Mr. Tirone made the motion to adjourn. Second Ms. Donohue The meeting adjourned at 2:52 p.m.
PHONE: (772) 664-3141
FAX: (772) 664-1928