CC&R DRAFT
The SPHA Board has taken the community comments and has put together a new set of CC&Rs. This is not a final draft. It is a starting point. Please read them, and bring your constructive comments to the meeting on April 3rd at the Sheldon Richins Bld Auditorium 6-8PM. Click HERE to open.
We will NOT be posting comments on the website pertaining to this document. PLEASE HOLD YOUR COMMENTS AND BRING THEM TO THE MEETING.
Also, we have not consulted with an attorney prior to releasing this new document. Rather than waste our dollars on attorneys fees, we will wait until be have a document with majority support. At that point, we will consult an attorney.
Please remember, right now (with exception to Plats A&B) Summit Park residents are living under outdated CC&Rs created by a developer. Our new document should reflect the needs and values of our current neighborhood.
Please plan on attending April 3rd. We value and need your input.
10 Comments
Permalink
I endorse this CC&R draft.
Stephen Marks
415 and 425 Parkview Dr.
Permalink
Thank you, Summit Park HOA Board, for all of your hard work. We appreciate that you’re trying to protect our interests as a community. There were just as many people for the HOA as against tonight (maybe more). The nay-sayers are always the most vocal.
Permalink
I guess time will tell who’s for the CC&Rs and who’s against. The draft CC&Rs are an improvement, but have a long ways to go before we’ll sign off on them. We’ll post our thoughts and suggestions at a later date.
One take away that Pam and I had when we got home was the thought that it’s a good thing we don’t live in the two plats that only allow one dog and one cat per lot. As we were greeted by our two dogs and two cats when we walked in the door, we laughed pretty hard pondering which two would have had to wear chicken costumes.
Permalink
Although I fear CC&Rs and generally view them as unhealthy for a community. The proposed CC&Rs are much better than the originals, because they are less restrictive. If we could continue holding down the delete key while making edits and make the CC&Rs really only about fire safety and the protection and health of our trees, I would support the proposed CC&Rs wholeheartedly.
Permalink
Very Funny! Thank you for the laugh Tom!
Permalink
I attended the meeting the other night. To be fair, can we have a consensus of all home/land owners in Summit Park to get an actual count of what the majority wants? No one can argue if the majority votes one way or another. I’m opposed to a mandatory HOA, I understand there are others that disagree with me. As in any election, the majority wins, if that means a mandatory HOA so be it. I don’t understand why we need uniform CC&R’s when Snyderville Basin has already covered it: http://www.co.summit.ut.us/communitydevelopment/downloads/snyderville/Development_Code.pdf
If they haven’t Summit County has…
Permalink
Please include your name on all posts and comments. Anonymous posts will not be accepted.
Permalink
Thanks for all the efforts to update the CC&Rs. One comment I have to Melanies comment and I think was a mis-understanding by many: We already have mandatory CC&Rs. They are just not being enforced. This is an attempt to update them. From my conversations with many after the meeting, the consensus seems to me to be that all are in favor of doing what we can to improve the fire prevention efforts and that should be the focus of the CC&Rs. Why not amend the CC&Rs to deal with the fire issue, include the dues to do that and eliminate everything else? Square footage requirements and pet restrictions should be deleted. I don’t want one of Toms dog to have to wear a chicken costume. It would be degrading!
Permalink
Thank you Hank, I understand that we already have CC&R’s that aren’t enforced and I agree that we should put our efforts toward fire prevention. Its the enforcement part of this argument that worries me and what that it might entail.
If we stick with the pet restrictions one of my dogs would have to wear a chicken costume ! As would most of the dogs on our street.
Permalink
I would like to comment on the “fire prevention” issue and who ultimately is responsible for it’s enforcement. Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State lands, Summit County and the Park City Fire Service District have made it very clear they will not provide measures to enforce any defensible space or fuel management requirements. All oversight and enforcement is presumably done through the respected developments CC&Rs. Summit County, however, has adopted wildland urban interface code standards for new development. One of the stipulations is to generate and submit a fuel management plan prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy. This, according to officials, is enforced. The HOA board has listened to public comments and has elected to act only as a body to implement projects and provide resource information. The result is a reasonable expectation for all homeowners to understand their obligation in making our neighborhood a fire adaptive and healthy forest ecosystem. Since there is no CC&R language suggesting mandatory compliance to any fuels management efforts, ultimately the consequences of no action falls on the homeowner. A major part of our effort in bringing the neighborhood together is to share the financial costs of creating, what will be, a flagship Firewise community. Not only will these funds provide the ability to contract companies, it allows a provision for the resource information component of our program; web page, signs, Firewise day, etc. In my opinion, a volunteer contribution by some homeowners, as suggested, will not provide the funding reliability for a long term planning strategy. If we do not reach an agreement, the current mandatory plats which pay their assessment, and the gracious donations of a few others, will continue to exclusively invest in our endeavors to mitigate our progressive wildland fire threat. This level of support, however, is inadequate for any future significant projects . I acknowledge that some folks do not want any part of this program and are convinced any effort to encourage conformity is an intrusion. For those who demand to be left alone, that is your choice, but please stop trying to deny the significant merits of this work from the ones who believe in what we are doing. If anyone would like to talk more about this, please call me and I will be happy to speak to you.