1512 N.W. Oceania Dr.
Waldport, Oregon 97394
Ph. (541) 563 - 3040 * Fax (541) 563 - 6489
e-mail
baybeach@peak.org * website http://www.pioneer.net/~baybeach
Minutes June 10, 2003
|
Minutes June 10, 2003 |
BAYSHORE BEACH CLUB
BOARD OF DIRECTORS WORKING MEETING
JUNE 10, 2003
Meeting called to order at 6:00PM by Jerry Hofstetter. Jerry welcomes all homeowners and board members here today. Lloyd Haines not in attendance and Daniel Norton not in attendance.
Canal.
Jon Souder is here from Coos Watershed Association about the canal. We received a letter from Coos Watershed asking permission to conduct a number of physical, chemical, and biological measurements on the upper North end of the canal. They are working on a project to develop a guide to assess the function of tidal fringe wetlands on the Oregon coast. This guide will be used by watershed councils, wetland scientists, and agencies to assess wetland conditions for restoration projects, mitigation planning, and coast-wide status and trends monitoring. This guide will allow people to go out and look at a specific wetland and determine how well that wetland is functioning for different types of services. Examples of those services are: rearing of juvenile fish, a habitat for ducks, and the ability to cycle nutrients through the water, to clean the water, to absorb flood waters. A two to four person team will conduct a series of tests, the data from those tests will be combined with the data from other sites along the Oregon coast which will result then in the Regional Guide. The time frame for this project will start in the next week or so and go through September. The guide will be available next spring.
Question by Mary Lou Morris "Is there an agency that is going to have to approve what ever the board decides, to begin working on the canal?"
Jon Souder "It depends on what Bayshore plans on doing and the magnitude of it and what will trigger some sort of requirement or approval. Regulatory agencies are Division of State Lands and Army Corp of Engineers. The existence of Coos Watershed or the results from their tests would not influence the Division of State Lands if Bayshore was to submit an application for a permit to dredge the canal. They would assess the condition of the canal as of today and not make Bayshore wait until next spring for results from Coos Watersheds tests.
Question by Max Metcalf "What is the best benefit that will come to the homeowners on the canal? What is the worst thing that could happen to the homeowners?"
Jon Souder "Best case scenario, is that there is a tool out there that could be used to look at the canal in Bayshore and depending on what the objectives for the homeowner was, it would tell you what condition it's in today and it would give some idea of what the best condition it could be in, at lease biologically. Worst case scenario, would be if Bayshore was to decide to dredge, this tool would tell you that by doing that you're causing this much loss in function and you have to replace that much function for function in mitigation. Regulatory agencies don't talk in terms of function they talk in terms of area. So if you are impacting such and such an area physically they are being asked to mitigate three times or eight times that area.
These tests by Coos Watershed will not help in answering questions regarding the maintenance of the canal, i.e. dredging or drainage of the canal.
Comment by Neil Hare "The canal is a drainage system for Bayshore; it was made for drainage and navigation. The dam is in; it's been in for years. If for some reason that gets turned into a wetlands and the soil keeps building up in it, eventually it won't drain. With the drainage the way it is I'm sure that the fluids out of the septic systems that are prevalent through this area, sooner or later won't drain and this Corporation will be forced to get on the sewer system at a cost of about $20 - $25 thousand dollars a lot."
Jon Souder comments "If you are concerned about the water purification functions, a wetland that flushes in and out with the tides, and has a good set of vegetation in it, will clean that affluent out and could end up as an additional benefit. Without making any strong statements, as I have not seen the dam, it could be that opening that up will allow you to have better flushing and actually move out accumulated sediments. What we have seen with what we call "perched" culverts actually results in having sediment build up over time."
Jerry Hofstetter "That is exactly what we have here."
Jon Souder "I'm not an engineer. But a hydrologist that would be able to document, with a strong satisfaction, that removing the dam is an appropriate way to go, this manual would help provide more justification, if in fact that would be a function that would be a benefit."
Jerry Hofstetter "Will they be able to determine that the dam is a result of what has been happening in the canal for the last forty years?"
Jon Souder "From this survey, no." "They will look at the wetland and say for these sorts of services given the way it's working right now it provides this function. What they will look at is then other sites that don't have situations like the dam and say in that sort of situation it's providing this set of functions. For example, if you looked at the water cleaning process, you would be able to look at the difference in using the tool between systems that were constrained because of a culvert versus one that is free flowing. And then be able to determine what the benefit from a nutrient uptake was between what you have now and what you would have if you opened it up."
There actually will be a strong hydrologic component in it which is the geomorphic side of things in looking at the channels, flushing rates, bank erosion with water velocity from this.
Mary Lou Morris "If you are not going to look at the area where the dam is, do you know of another agency that would be available to do a study and gives us some more information to make a determination?"
Fran Recht "This seems like a very complex system. I could bring a biologist from ODF&W and get a first initial impression and then depending on what your goals are as a group, go from there.
MSP Jim Hanson motions to allow Coos Watershed to conduct their survey; Beth Marin seconds the motion, unanimous, passed.
Approval of Annual Meeting Minutes.
Does any one have any comments or questions on the May 17th meeting minutes?
MSP Jim Hanson motions to accept the minutes as written, Beth Marin seconds the motion, all in favor, unanimous, passed.
Treasurers Report by Vicki Klebe and Jim Hanson.
$42,000 has been received in membership dues for 2003-2004. Expenditures for water consumption have been answered. Jim Hanson spoke with Seal Rock Water and the reason for such a high water bill is that Bayshore has a 2" main, which rates them as an industrial user, so with the $22.00 residential fee we also have a $136.00 commercial fee, the $170.00 bill for water is not exceeding any costs.
Jerry Hofstetter, Jim Hanson and Vicki met with the investment banker with West Coast Bank regarding the money we have in the Money Market account. Suggestion from Jim Hanson is to wait until August when the $25,000 CD we now have has expired and take a look at the options then and make a decision on how to invest at that time.
Road District Report by Glen Morris.
Glen is here to clarify the Road Districts position here in Bayshore. The Road District is not a committee of Bayshore; they have no relationship to the Bayshore Homeowners Association. The Road District was formed in the early 70's from the Homeowners Association to provide paving and to maintain roads. The Road District is funded by homeowner's property taxes. The Road District is a government body, representing your self as a member of the Road District is punishable by jail, a fine, and destroying government property is an even bigger deal. If you have a problem with the roads here in Bayshore, please call me or one of the other members. A few questions have been asked, by homeowners and board members, by letter and by phone, here are the answers to those questions:
1. When the sand piles build up on the road easements, who are responsible? If sand is on the road, the Road District is responsible.
2. Who is responsible for the sand on the right-of-way? The home owner. If it is in front of your house your responsible. If you do not want your sand messed with, let Glen know and he will make sure your sand is not messed with. If your sand blocks your mail box it is your problem. It is not the Road Districts problem, mail boxes are not a road function. If they were on pavement they would be.
3. Will Tri-agg take sand with vegetation or debris? No, it is useless. You use that kind of sand for fill. Tri-agg cannot sell the sand if it has vegetation or debris in it.
4. Are there written Guidelines that address these issues? No, but there will be.
Tri-agg is not to remove sand from the right-of-way or a home owner's property. A letter from a property owner asked: Some one cleaned out some property, the excavator took the clean out and dumped it into the right-of-way across from her lot, she asked, who is responsible for cleaning that up? Answer: you are. And, she is, under Oregon law. However, she knows who the property owner is and who the contractor was and she called the contractor and told him to remove it.
Homeowners, who live on the west side of Oceania, cannot remove sand, from their door step west. If you have intentions of removing sand from that area, Steve Williams, with the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, must first be contacted. He will tell you how much you can take, what the slope has to be, etc. Anyone who has intentions of doing something with your property on the west side who live on Oceania, do not do it without contacting Steve Williams.
The only piece of machinery that Tri-agg has, on the South end of Oceania, is the "Green" machine, and it will be leaving in a few days and will not be back until the fall. Tri-agg has permission, to have that piece of machinery parked down on Oceania, by the Bayshore Homeowners Association. The cost to mobilize and de-mobilize that piece of equipment is very expensive. When a homeowner calls and says that their is sand on the road and it is barely passable, Glen calls Tri-agg and asks if they can come down and clear it away. They can because the piece of equipment is already here, and they don't have to move the equipment from different job sites.
Lots of discussion on this subject. Kevin MacPhee claims he has gotten several complaints from other homeowners about the site nuisance and why does it have to be parked down on Oceania all the time, why can't it be moved to different locations? The sand problem is down on Oceania, and that is where the equipment needs to be. The cost of mobilizing and de-mobilizing that piece of equipment is expensive and the Road District doesn’t have the funds to pay for it. Tri-agg removes the sand for free, if homeowners wanted to take it upon themselves to pay someone else to do it, or have the Bayshore Homeowners Association do it, the cost of equipment, man hours, a storage area and County permits would be astronomical. Here's what it would cost:
That "Green" machine costs $40,000, to mobilize it or haul it is $15,000, a dump truck to haul the sand way is about $50,000, if you can find one that cheap. It costs $85 - $95 an hour to hire a man to run the "Green" machine and $85 an hour to hire a man to drive the dump truck. You have to find a "storage area" but first you have to get an additional use permit from the County to find us a storage area that they will let us use. Now you have all this sand, how are you going to sell it? How do you let people know you are going to sell it? Now you have someone who wants to buy it, they’re going to want it to be delivered of course, so now you have to hire a dump truck and man to have the sand dumped where this person wants it delivered. Then you have bookkeeping costs, accounting costs, advertising costs, you have to issue 1099s for all the haulers, you will have additional insurance costs, heavy equipment insurance is the highest in this state.
If a home owner has a problem with Tri-agg, please call Glen Morris.
Planning Committee report by Mary Lou Morris.
A couple of applications came before the Planning Committee and they were approved. After they were approved it was found that they did not follow the building plans as submitted to the Planning Committee.
The first one is about a garage that is in the process of being constructed up on Bayshore Drive. The application that the Planning Committee reviewed and approved was for a 15' oversized garage. Now that structure is over 15'. A letter was sent to the property owner to let her know that she was in violation, that the plans she submitted to us were null and void because she built something that was not what she had submitted to the Planning Committee. She has met with us and we are getting this resolved. We have asked her, after the fact, to get an Average Original Grade for the piece of property that the garage is being built on, she has done that. We have sent out notification letters to the homeowners who live within 300' asking them for their approval of the additional height over 15'. Letters went out last week there is a 30 day period before we will know the outcome. Mary Lou feels that since the garage is being built against a hill, that the home owner is working with her neighbors to the north who would be impacted the most by this structure, the height variance will probably pass.
The second one is a home that is being constructed on Oceania. This house is still in the construction phase. The property owner met with the adjoining neighbor to the north to get her view point on the construction of the home because he wanted a two story house and he also wanted to use an existing septic system (there was a house on this piece of property and it had burned down a couple of years ago, the home owner wants to move his house as far back on the lot as possible to use that existing septic system instead of the heavy expense of putting in a new one). This required a height variance which was not opposed, partially because of the roof line, the only portion of the roof that was suppose to have a height elevation, was a center peak at the front and the back. The peaks off the north and south end were supposed to be lower so they would not impact the adjacent neighbors as much. There was also not to be an overhang onto a deck. The plans that were submitted to the Planning Committee, show that there was not to be a deck on the north or west side of the house. We approved these plans. The property owner took a different set of plans to the Lincoln County Planning Committee and got those approved. Neither one of those plans are what is being built on this piece of property. This is another possibility of violations. The property owner was notified, and he has written back to us, not really addressing our concerns it was more of a defense between what concessions he made for the property owner to the north. The board has received a copy of a letter that was sent to Steve Williams who is with the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. The property owner has asked for a permit from Steve to be able to build a deck over the vegetation line. A lot of discrepancies on what this home owner wants to build. In his own application process he has a deck on one diagram that is 20' long, another one where it is 30' long and another one where it is 38' long. The Planning Committee wrote a letter to Jerry Hofstetter in opposition because the Planning Committee felt that if one property owner is allowed to build over the vegetation line that it will set precedence and other people will want to follow suit. The vegetation line, west, is for every ones benefit, not only Bayshore property owners but anyone who wants to enjoy the coast line. If you start encroaching on that it could go further and further out. The deadline for submitting letters, either for in favor of or against the deck to the west, is June 12, 2003. The Planning Committee has sent a letter in opposition. Jerry has sent a letter representing the board's opposition and a number of homeowners have responded as well. The property owner will be present at the July 19, 2003 Homeowners meeting to answer questions and give justification for what he has done. The property owner to the north of him who is directly affected by this will also be present.
A question by Neil Hare of what the drawing shows. The diagram, that was part of the application, states that the foundation of the house is 2' from the vegetation line and he wants to cantilever the deck out 72" from the foundation of the house which is 6', which is 4' over.
Beach Access report by Kevin MacPhee.
No report at this time.
Tennis Courts by Jerry Hofstetter.
A decision was made to repair the Tennis court at a cost of $5500. Jerry has received several letters from homeowners that think the expenditure is a waste of funds but he has also received some phone calls from homeowners that do use the Tennis court and are in favor of the repairs. Jerry's thoughts are that it is part of the Bayshore Homeowners Association to maintain common property which is stated in the by-laws. Instead of doing away an attraction no matter how many people use it, as long as it is being used I think we owe it to our community to make it look atheistically pleasing. These repairs will probably last for at least 20 years.
Re-surfacing of the court needs to be done in the next couple of years. The cost to re-surface would be about $8200. Much discussion on when this should be done, now or later. Consensus is let's get the re-surfacing done now while the rest of the repairs are being done and while the money is available.
MSP Beth Marin motions to approve the resurfacing of the tennis court at the estimate we have received. Mary Lou Morris seconds the motion, all in favor, 5 for - 1 abstain (Ray Schmidt)
New Business.
We have received some bids for the repairs to the south wall of the club. Bids are from CP Carlson builders @ $3965.00, Gary LeBrun @ $3708.00 and American Light Water Homes @ $4400.00. We have 4 windows that need to be replaced. Lookin' Goood Windows has given us a bid at $200.00 a piece. Jerry comments that his personal preference would be to go with Gary Lebrun. I like his work ethics, he does excellent work and he is a homeowner here. Shakes will be replaced with 5" cedar to replace the 10" shakes that are currently present. The 5" shakes will protect that side of the building against the weather better than the 10". Any dry rot discovered will be dealt with at time of discovery, which will be at an additional cost and payable by Bayshore.
MSP Beth Martin motions to accept LeBrun Homes bid for repairs to the south side of the beach club - option A. Ray Schmidt seconds the motion, all in favor, unanimous, passed.
A discussion on how a Height Variance is done and how a decision is made to approve or disapprove that Height Variance. Height Variance approve or disapprovals are done on an individual basis. Thoughts are that it should be made fair for everyone and that a formula should be created that works for all.
Old Business.
Jerry comments that he is not happy with the pool rule regarding homeowners having to accompany their guests when they are adults. He believes that any homeowner that pays their dues and has a valid card and they want to give it to a friend or relative that is visiting who wants to use the pool, that the homeowner should not have to accompany them. Vacation renters must have a valid rental receipt and buy a pool pass.
MSP Jim Hanson make a motion that we acccept the pool rules as they are with the exception that any homeowner can give, an adult guest, their card to use with up to five people. Mary Lou Morris seconds the motion, all in favor, unanimous, passed.
Adjournment.
Beth Marin motions to adjourn; Ray Schmidt seconds the motion, all in favor, unanimous, passed.
Meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M.