Letter: Surfside pulling switcheroo on tree heights

Published 9:42 am Monday, June 20, 2022

I want to express how I feel about recent events in Surfside and to possibly provide some useful information. My wife and I have been members of the Surfside HOA since 1993. We own two lots — one is graded but is not developed and has one tree; and, the other has a house but no trees. Our modest home is situated about halfway between the ocean and the Surfside ridge. We chose this location intentionally as a vacation home and not as a permanent residence.

We do not belong to any local organizations nor do we advocate for any of their positions. Basically, we are strangers at Surfside.

The three issues that I am most concerned about are process, tree heights and views. A statement that I recently read states “Our covenants have historically made provisions to protect views by limiting heights of buildings and trees so as not to unreasonably interfere with members’ scenic views.” Not mentioned is that the covenants have historically also made provision for resolving tree-height conflict.

Until 2018, the SHOA covenants described a process for resolving tree-height complaints. The process consisted of three essential components. 1. Signed written complaint; 2. Unreasonably interference with the view of other properties; 3. Exceeding allowable height.

However, the 2018 revision intentionally, or inadvertently, made a substantial change to wording of the process described above. The revision does stipulate that tree-height complaints are to be initiated by a written complaint.

Recently, I received a letter from SHOA stating, “that our goal is to maintain the integrity, attractiveness, and value of all properties and that Surfside has implemented proactive reviews to encourage homeowners to maintain their property. Review of your property indicates your tree height exceeds 16!”  I asked if there was a complaint. Answer: “No, we are being proactive.”  My response: But the tree doesn’t interfere with anyone’s view!  Answer: “It doesn’t matter — it’s over 16 feet!”

I have difficulty reconciling how my one tree could negatively impact nebulous values such as integrity, attractiveness, etc. when the covenants allow within my division 25% of the parcels to have trees up to 24’ in height. No reasonable person would determine that my one tree unreasonably interfered with the views of other properties. The result is that my rights are eroded, my standing as a member diminished and I became exposed to substantial financial penalty.

I think that this action taken by SHOA in the midst of a pandemic to be unscrupulous, narrow-minded, provocative, divisive and unnecessary. What precipitated the SHOA action? Based on minimal evidence available, it was initiated by a small group of property owners seeking to maximize their views. It is also possible that participation on the SHOA Board has become skewed or that a group has become so entrenched in the government of SHOA so as to exclude other points of view. Perhaps it would make sense to divide Surfside into districts with representatives from each area. I am sympathetic to anyone desiring a view; however, this should not occur at my or any other members’ expense.

The view issue is muddled. The word doesn’t even appear in the covenants and there are no SHOA governing documents defining views nor do they identify which parcels the views might originate from. One might infer from the height table that there could be a connection. However, again the word view is not used. 

What has been allowed to happen is that at least one covenant restriction has been imposed on a large number of members to give a relatively small number a privilege. This is a contradiction to the values and principals Surfside was founded on. Our documents emphatically state that the covenants are for the benefit of all platted parcels and that the interest of each member shall be equal to that of any other member and no member can acquire any interest which shall entitle him to any greater voice, vote or authority in the corporation than any other member.

Current and future development has and will ensure a substantial reduction in the number of trees; and, members residing on the Surfside ridge will always have spectacular 180 degree scenic views, complemented by views of the sunset and the stars, regardless of tree heights. However, I do not believe any entitlement exists. 

What do I want? As a member, I want to have my rights restored, consideration (reimbursed for financial penalty) and that the covenants be revised to restore the tree height resolution wording that existed prior to the 2018 revision. Additionally, I think it’s time for SHOA to contract with a university, urban forester or others with expertise to perform a wildfire risk assessment and develop a plan to manage Surfside’s urban forest.

WILLIAM HICKS

SHOA Member