BAYSHORE BEACH CLUB
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
JULY 19, 2003

• JERRY HOFSTETTER PRESIDENT DIVISION 3
• BETH MARIN CORPORATE SECRETARY DIVISION 7
• KEVIN MACPHEE BOARD MEMBER DIVISION 7
• MARY LOU MORRIS BOARD MEMBER DIVISION 1
• DANIEL NORTON BOARD MEMBER DIVISION 6
• RAY SCHMIDT BOARD MEMBER DIVISION 6

Approval of June 10, 2003 minutes.

June 10th meeting minutes not approved as the board did not get copies to review.

Treasurers Report

No report, Vicki is on vacation.

Planning Committee Report by Mary Lou Morris

An update from the June 10, 2003 meeting; Two sets of plans were submitted to the Planning Committee and approved. After approval and after construction had started, it was noted that the building as per the approved plans was not being followed. One of the plans submitted was for a garage up on Bayshore Drive. The property owner complied with the Planning Committee. As per requested an Average Original Grade was done, a request for a Height Variance was received, and the out come of the Height Variance was that no one would be affected by the additional height, as far as view, so the Height Variance was approved and the completion of the garage is taking place now. The other one is a home that is being constructed on Oceania. There has been no additional contact with the property owner since they were notified by letter, that their plans submitted and approved were not being followed.

In 2000 a double wide manufactured home went in, the homeowners did not construct a garage or a carport that is required by the C & R’s. It has been an on going battle for almost 3 years now to try to get them into compliance with the Guidelines. They submitted a plan for a garage and it was supposed to be completed by the end of this month, we received a call from a homeowner who lives by the property and we were told that it was not a garage but a shed. (Copies of what the garage was to look like and pictures of what was built were given to the Board to review). Within the last 6 months the Planning Committee has had three cases where the homeowners have done something other than what was approved. The Planning Committee is frustrated and has asked the Board to look at some type of enforcement during the building process and possible inspections done during and after construction and some type of penalty to those who are not adhering to the Guidelines, the C & R's and the Bylaws.

The Planning Committee is discussing the idea of having a Saturday meeting. The Board, Contractors and homeowners are invited to discuss Planning Committee issues. Discussion will be on how the Planning Committee is governed, what their job is, and the problems that they are having, in hopes that everyone in the community will have a better understanding of what's going on.

Last month there was also a question about a Height Variance request as to how the Planning Committee makes their determinations. The following information was taken from the C & Rs and Guidelines for Determinations:

C & Rs, Article II, 2. "The Planning Committee may in addition to such other regulations and requirements, impose regulations and requirements requiring an attractive and aesthetically pleasing design for any building to be erected and requiring the placement thereof upon the subject property in such a manner as to minimize the impact upon the environment and upon other lands within the subdivision, and particularly adjacent property

From Planning Committee Responsibilities and Guidelines, Variances, 1. Planning Committee will review and follow C & R procedure that states all of the surrounding neighbors within 300 feet will be notified of a variance request, then based on the opinions of those returned letters, the Planning Committee will make a decision, popular vote rules, unless an obstruction of view to an existing home is going to occur. If the requester does not agree with the decision, they may appeal it to the next level being the board.

From Guidelines for Determinations, Guidelines for Height Exceptions (voted and accepted by the Board in July of 2001) View, 3. Obstruction of view of neighboring lots, if a view would be possible when all lots are built upon, is considered, when considering a height exception.

Next item was a discussion on the availability of property in Bayshore that could be used for RV and Boat parking for the homeowners of Bayshore. Lloyd Haines has done some research on this subject and it was recommended that the board wait until his return from Alaska in October for more information.

The Planning Committee members are: Don Butler, Debbie Cushman, Mary Lou Morris and Randy Walker.

Jerry Hofstetter: "Before we continue on to discussion items we have a vacancy on the board. Does everybody have the information on the attorney Dennis Gilbert?"

Beth Marin: "Do we have to make a decision on this today?"

Jerry Hofstetter: "Yes we can make a decision on this today; we need to fill the vacancy on the board!"

MM Ray Schmidt motions to accept Dennis Gilbert, he recommends him he’s a real honest John.

MS Jerry Hofstetter: "He's a practicing attorney; he’'s lived here in Bayshore for 3 years. We have all his information right here. There has been a motion made, anybody second it?" Daniel Norton seconds the motion.

Mary Lou Morris: "Discussion please!"

Audience and Board members have asked to have a discussion. Question from audience: "What division does he live in?"

Jerry Hofstetter: "He lives up on Parker."

Jerry Hofstetter: "I believe he lives in division 2."

Audience member: "What part of Parker does he live on?"

After some audience help it was confirmed that Dennis Gilbert lives in division 4.

Mary Lou Morris: "I know of one other person that is in the audience today that had planned on trying to be a candidate this spring because she was away she did not get her name submitted to the nominating committee, she has said that she would be willing to run for a board position. I also got a call from another person that was going to be a candidate but withdrew because of some comments, he is also interested. I suggest that instead of making a decision today we give the other two people an opportunity to submit the same information as Mr. Gilbert and I think the board needs an opportunity to discuss this."

Questions from the audience include what divisions these other people are from and how a person is voted on to the board if they are replacing someone who has resigned.

Jerry Hofstetter: "If there is a person in the audience right now that's interested in serving on the board, Connie Abercrombie, she is in consideration. I want this to go to a vote (Dennis Gilbert as a board member)."

Jerry Hofstetter: "Dennis Gilbert, I will tell you a little bit about him, he is a practicing attorney, he's 61 years old, and he just had a new grandbaby. There has been a motion to vote him onto the board, Dan Norton second the motion, I request that the board vote, all in favor?"

MP 3 yes, 2 no Beth Marin and Mary Lou Morris.

Jerry Hofstetter: "Dennis Gilbert will be on our board. Dennis got the majority of the vote. Connie Abercrombie will you please stand up, I apologize, is Keith Bosley in the audience? Dennis Gilbert is not in attendance."

Mary Lou Morris: "I’d like to go back to the discussion."

Jerry Hofstetter: "There has been a motion, it’s been seconded, and it was passed."

Confusion and comments from the audience as to what just took place. Lots of dissension from the audience and board members.

Mary Lou Morris, "I suggest we go ahead with the rest of our agenda and then call an executive session meeting after this meeting and discuss this."

Beth Marin: "You have to remove this off the table."

Audience member: "I believe your motion and vote on the motion is out of order. I think that vote should be rejected. If a person would like to be on the board I think you should let them present themselves."

Jerry Hofstetter: "O.K. let's back up on the motion, I agree, we will back up on the motion, we will reject it for the moment. Let's continue on with other motions for board members. Is somebody going to make a motion for Connie?"

MS Mary Lou motions to submit Connie Abercrombie's name as a candidate for a board member to fill the vacancy by Jim Hanson. Beth Marin seconds the motion.

A brief bio by Connie Abercrombie and Keith Bosley and their thoughts on what they would like to see happen in Bayshore.

MS Mary Lou motions to submit Keith Bosley's name as a candidate. Ray Schmidt seconds the motion.

Jerry comments "Since we have a little conflict here and Connie hasn't had a chance to give us some information in writing, I think the board should hold off on voting for the new board member until all the people who want to join the board can be present to present a personal resume, so in fairness to Keith, Connie and Dennis we will hold off this vote for replacing the board member until the Board can meet with all three candidates at the same time."

Jane Hamblet: "In accordance with the by-laws where we are supposed to have a board member from each division if possible, that since Keith Bosley is from division 2 I think that he should automatically be on it."

Jerry Hofstetter: "I'm going to set this aside until all three people can fairly be there to either be voted on the Board or not voted on the Board.

Jane Hamblet: "So you are going to disregard the By-laws?"

Jerry Hofstetter: "I'm going to let a fair vote take place." Suggestion from homeowner Janette Hart that anyone who is interested in serving on the board should submit a background resume to the board to review.

Jerry Hofstetter: "I think in all fairness to everyone we will hold this vote at a later date and we will make the public meeting, public. I feel that any meeting this board has, whether it is a working or scheduled meeting, that you homeowners should be involved. I feel there is nothing we should hide and there is no way we should have a meeting be behind closed doors. The only meetings that are to take place behind closed doors are Executive meetings. So anytime there is a working meeting, and this hasn't been the case in the past, I feel that anytime we call a special meeting or a working meeting that any homeowner that wants to be at that meeting should be allowed at that meeting and voice their opinions to what they feel is taking place. So we will table this discussion and we will let Mr. Bosley submit his background information, let Connie submit some background information and then at that point in time the board will take all into consideration and vote a new board member. I'm just assuming that you folks knew that if any one of you being a homeowner has the right to request to serve on this board. If anyone is interested in serving on this board, since we do have one vacancy, I would suggest if you are interested that you submit your application to be a board member and it will be considered with the others. The board will look at having a working meeting sometime in August." Anytime there is a vacancy on the board the next appointed person will serve until the next Annual election."

Discussion Items.

Fireworks Committee report by Chuck Bentley and Jim Hamblet.

Jerry Hofstetter: "Chuck, I want to personally apologize to you for our phone conversation the other day, whether you accept it or not is entirely up to you, I'm sorry I got out of line and I assume that you are smarter than a speed bump."

Chuck Bentley: "Last July Jim Hamblet and I were appointed to handle the fireworks issues in Bayshore. Because of a threatened retaliation I have asked Mr. Hamblet to speak."

Jim Hamblet: "We contacted all the rental agencies; we got them to change their contracts, so the renters would sign that they would not use fireworks in Bayshore. We contacted individuals where we knew fireworks were being exploded, explained the law to them and supposedly illicited their cooperation. We contacted the Fire and Police departments and we thought we had things in pretty good control. We even had a patrol of off duty deputy sheriffs during that weekend who drove their cars in front of my house a few times but the explosions on the beach continued, and if anything they were worse than last year."

"Our one recommendation is that we have authorities on the beach and not driving around in their county sheriff's cars. Because some of the fireworks were pointed to the east and with the fire danger we have we really feel it's required to in effect eliminate fireworks. All fireworks on the beach are illegal; they are all prohibited by Oregon law. Somehow we have to figure a way to enforce the law on the beach. As Chuck said we were appointed a year ago, Mark appointed us and he is not now with us, so at this point we see that our responsibilities have been fulfilled."

Comment from an audience member thanking the committee for having done what they did and she appreciated, and thought that a lot of other people appreciated, seeing some enforcement here in Bayshore.

Jerry Hofstetter: "I would like to make a comment since you are making it so appreciated to Jim Hamblet. The fireworks committee did make a suggestion and the Vice President and I made a decision to go ahead and hire the patrol and I caught nothing but flak for it. I caught flak from Mr. Bentley for them not doing their job, he told me flat out that they were worthless and he was spending his money on something that was worthless and I offered to give him his money back, which would have been about 30 cents. That is how that conversation went with Mr. Bentley, I was verbally chewed out for trying something."

Audience members gave some thanks and appreciation for the patrol.

A suggestion from Jerry Hofstetter that maybe next year we could possibly get a four wheel drive patrol that could be on the beach only.

Jerry Hofstetter: "As far as the patrol, we received information from the Lincoln County Sheriff's Reserve Program in our office about a week before the 4th of July and we didn't have time to call a board meeting, they told us of the program that we could participate in and basically they told us it was $300, $100 per day, we got 3 days of coverage, they had a marked car and a unmarked car. They did confiscate fireworks; possibly they didn’t do enough as some people feel. I myself made the decision to do this without the board and I have caught some flak for it, but I felt we needed to try something. I think there was a comment made to our Secretary from Beth about doing it without asking the other board members.

Beth Marin: "Yes there was, I felt the board should have made that decision, that's why we are sitting here, not the President and Vice President to take off and spend money, I don't care if it’s a dollar or ten thousand. You have a board and I feel the board should have been in on that decision."

Mary Lou Morris: "We did have a hand out at the June 10th meeting on the table regarding this, and after the meeting was closed I brought it to your attention and you said we didn't need to worry about it now that we could take care of it at the July meeting. If it would have been discussed like it should have been at the June 10th meeting you would have had the input from the community as well as it is an item that could have been approved by the board."

Jerry Hofstetter: "If you want to check the minutes of the June 10th meeting, no one knew what the program offered. Vicki got the information from the sheriff's department just a few days before the 4th of July and I knew the July meeting was too late for the Fourth of July fireworks. That was obvious to anyone who could read a calendar."

Comment from an audience member: "Can I make a suggestion? It’s clear that there is an awful lot of hostility between the board members, if you really want homeowners to come to these meetings to get informed, I suggest you damp this down for now and let's stick with the discussion items and you guys can fight whenever you want."

More discussion regarding fireworks in Bayshore, it was decided to move on to the next agenda item and that the Board and homeowners had the winter to talk about a game plan for next year.

Bayshore by Neil Hare.

Neil spent 4 or 5 hours reading all the minutes from the Planning Committee a couple of weeks ago, he extracted data from these based on approval of Height Variations. Neil gave the yes and no votes from several height variances. The reason for this report was because of Bill Taylor's denial he received from the Planning Committee for his Height Variance request. Neil has asked that the board of directors make a motion to overrule the Planning Committee and grant Bill Taylor's variance.

Response from Mary Lou Morris: "What you need to know is that Taylor's situation was completely different than all of the others. All of the others were building on a vacant lot, anybody that lives in Bayshore and lives near a vacant lot, knows that if that lot is built on they're going to lose a portion of their view, that's a given. If you want to protect your view you buy it. I believe, in all of those you listed, there were only 2 other houses that were on level ground, all of the others were either on Oceania where they are on a hillside already, they are not going to block anybody's view except the homes on either side, or they are up against a hillside, either on Parker or Bayshore or up on Oceanview, so nobody's view is going to be affected. Taylor's was an existing house, the height was approximately 11' 4 that area is all built around it with the exception of a vacant lot across the street that the people next to it bought to protect their view. So when those people bought in that area they looked at existing area that was already built and said o.k. what view we've got is what we are going to have, not thinking that somebody was going to want to take a flat topped house and extend it 5 _ feet, he wanted to take his house to 17 1/2', 2 _ variance above the 15' limit, so he wanted to go from 11' to 17 _'. The no responses were from people who lived to the east of his home; their views would have been directly affected. So when you look at statistics, just like it says in the Guidelines, you have to take each case on a case by case basis, you have to look at each lot separately. I also would like to add that I had a conversation with an attorney yesterday and I read him the C & Rs and the guidelines and he said as long as the Planning Committee is following the Guidelines and C&Rs they are doing what they are supposed to do. If a person does not agree to the decision they have the right to appeal it. We told Mr. Taylor that in person as well as in writing, We also suggested that he contact the property owners that opposed it, explain the situation and see if they would change their vote. He chose not to, he came back to us and withdrew his application for a Height Variance and said that he would build his house at the 15'. He never said a word about appealing the decision and as far as I know he didn’t appeal it to the board." In the past there have been a lot of things that have been done illegally, the C & Rs, the Guidelines have not been followed and what we are trying to do as a Planning Committee now is to follow the C & Rs and the Guidelines and make sure that they are being adhered to."

Joe Vandehey: "I would like first to thank everyone for taking the time to be on the board and the Planning Committee. I am familiar with the job site that you are talking about. The Mueski's live in that area, east of the Taylor's, they asked me my opinion. I went up there and looked at it; I saw a slight slope to the existing residence I also saw that doing what was asked to do would in fact take over 75 - 80% of their ocean view away. They had recently bought it with the intention of having that view. I believe that the Planning Committee made the proper decision."

Audience gives positive feedback on the decision that the Planning Committee made on this particular situation.

Jerry Hofstetter: "To make a motion to reverse the motion is a mute point the roof is not going to be changed. What Neil Hare is trying to do, I assume, is to right what some people feel as an injustice and feel that if this can happen to him that anyone of you in the future, and I will fight against the injustice if you want to buy a piece of property and build a house, your height variance may be in jeopardy if you happen to have an enemy on certain committees."

Don Butler: "I’ve only been on the Planning Committee about 9 months, and I’ve seen a number of these height variances come and go. In my opinion, and I haven’t done Neil's job of tallying up all the various different height variance’s that have been requested whether they were approved or disapproved, the ones that I know of that have been disapproved, that have been disapproved based on loss of view by neighbors, the ones that have been approved to our determination, have been approved because of no loss of view. If you look at the concept of having the opinions of people within a 300 foot radius, put yourself in their position. A guy wants to build this great monolith thing, up against a bank up here on Parker or wherever, and they don’t like to see this great monolith go up, but you’re a neighbor but your view is not being jeopardized. According to the C & Rs the Height Variance is allowed when requested if a view is not lost by a neighbor. In the cases where a view is not lost, why should that person really have a no vote individually, but if everybody in that neighborhood, or a high majority of that neighborhood saying no, if their view is lost or not, should they have the right to a view point? That’s why we give the people who are going to lose a view due to a height variance the strength of the additional input according to the C & Rs. If they’re going to lose a view, according to the C & Rs we can't approve a height variance."

Jerry Hofstetter: "I did mention to Mary Lou that I thought the 300 foot radius should be changed. If a person is going to lose their view, then the people most affected should be the ones to decide the height variance. Not people that are a block away. If this had happened in the past, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. The problem I'm having with this is the consistency of the Planning Committee until this one issue. If we need to change the Guidelines to the people that is most affected, I would be all for that that way there wouldn't be someone that is a block or 2 blocks away or 300 feet that can't even see your house giving a yes vote when someone across the street is adversely affected."

Debbie Cushman: "What I have heard today is that this case is mute because Mr. Taylor has gone ahead with his project. The other thing that I’ve heard is that Mr. Taylor changed his mind about what he was going to do. As of result of all of that, what I am understanding is that a judgment from the Planning Committees decision making process is what is being discussed today, not that case, not the outcome of that case, but they way we do our job. And I suggest to the board that we are very serious about following the C & Rs and the Guidelines to the letter, so if there is anything that anyone in this room wants to change, it needs to be brought to this board and you need to change it. If you don’t want "view" in the Guidelines, take it out! But we are going to follow the Guidelines the Board has given us."

Comments from audience members wondering why this subject is even being talked about since Mr. Taylor did not appeal to the board and the Planning Committee made the decision that followed the C & Rs and Mr. Taylor's roof is done. Discussion ended.

Click here to see the rest of the minutes for this meeting.

Return to Board of Directors Index