Treehouse - Wow what a story.

thank you erika, you spelled it all out. there is a bottom line regardless of any special circumstances. as we teach children: follow the rules whether they seem fair or not. accept the consequences of you don't don't expect an exception just because you have a circumstance- almost everyone thinks they have one.

 

I'm referring to the fact that he decided to take his story to the media instead of appealing his case to the BOARD. What does that say about him?

 

If the story was solicited, he could have declined the interview and that doesn't negate his unwillingness to appeal the committee's decision.

 

Flynn - I am not trying to argue, but I can confirm the story was initiated by the homeowner.

On April 8, 2012 at 11:50AM I spoke with the Loudoun Times Mirror Editor Mr. John Geddie and he confirmed that Mr. Keister contacted the paper. (I also sent an email to the Editor with the errors listed below).

The purpose of my call to the Editor was, there were several corrections that needed to be made to the story. The paper later changed the e-edition of the story to reflect the changes below;
1) the reporter stated they had contacted the SubCommittee - repeatedly and we refused to provide comment.

2) the reporter stated the SubCommittee advised the homeowner to make birdhouses out of the tree-house materials.

3) it was reported that the tree house was built over a year ago, I provided the facebook & petition site created by the homeowner which documents the tree house was built in the Summer/Fall of 2011 - not over a year ago.

So it's not an assumption - it is a fact the homeowner contacted the Loudoun Times Mirror and initiated this story.

 

Leaps? You, historically, have a lot of practice. Provocateur. :rolleyes3:

 

Wow, just reading this thread and folks can be downright nasty. Yes, part of an HOA we are, rules we must follow, but I seriously wonder how many of you that are critical of that family actually take care of an aspie or autistic child... my 'assumptive' leap says virtually none.

Here's how I see it going down based on first hand experience:

You deal with crazy, illogical, and seemingly random emotional swings from your child on a day in and day out basis. You drive yourself nuts just finding that one simple thing that will bring some semblance of order to your house, anything at all before you end up divorced, or fired, or simply committed yourself because of the stress involved with managing that type of situation. Sometimes the tunnel gets so dark that its really not unreasonable to think that maybe, just maybe, they were in a really down cycle in their lives and this was a court of last resort. Maybe, just maybe this tree-house worked to bring some balance to their lives. Perhaps things were so stressed that the thought of having to ask the HOA wasn't even on the radar at the time. That is not beyond scope in the least, speaking from first hand experience.

Now,they get the memo that it must come down and see that there is no chance in hell that it will be approved. What do you do? Well, being an advocate for your child you reach out to tell the story, to create change where change is needed (much like the recent effort to reform certain telecommunications issues part of this community suffers).

If you think that you are in tune with providing suitable options??? Come and spend a few days with my jellyman and tell me how flexible autistic/apsie kids can be - lol, the difference between a treehouse and a shed can be a fairly major deal. It's just not that simple,and I really wish I could articulate a logical reason as to why. No one asks for this illness and, in all honesty, it's not our fault that these kids don't understand rules designed for general population 'should' apply to them as well, and never accept that fact. Go visit a special ed classroom at your local school before you start thinking you can solve the problem. Hell, maybe anyone with 'special needs' should just take a hike 'eh?

That are reasons to why certain rules need to be bent on an as-needed basis at times, and in my mind this situation is one of those reasons. But, from the tone of half of the idiots that feel they have some insight or intelligent opinion here, there's no chance in hell of that ever happening.

And don't start blasting me with 'but the rules say'. If you feel the need to do that then, in advance, 'shove it'... not trying to be nasty, but the whole argument about conformity and everyone needs to be treated equally doesn't work in these kids favor.

 

I know this horse is dead and rotting however, I must beat it one more time. Just can't help myself... The way to avoid a situation like this is to not put yourself (or your special needs child) in the situation to begin with. Completely avoidable by the father. I am done.

 

idiot... couldnt help myself and wanted to smack a horse...

 

My apologies.. I did overstep my bounds a bit but the topic hits a little close to home. This entire thread - amongst others - have felt like a big personal attack towards the family - pitchforks and all. Funny to see people preach about folks having a sense of entitlement. Too bad that don't realize that they too exercise (rather unwarranted) entitlement of free speech when they decide to lay waste to someones character by speculating their motivations in a public forum.

HOA Board, I have a question that I'd like to ask. The beat everyone seems to be marching to has been that this family never executed the appeals process. In my personal opinion, that argument doesnt hold water - I don't think the guy had any options to maintain that treehouse at all. I cite a (supposed) HOA Sub Committee member's opinion under the pen-name 'Needs of the Many':

'The treehouse is huge. It is approximately 150 sq ft, equivalent to a 10x15room. Something this size, on a smallish lot, AND stuck up in the air isextremely prominent during the 4-5 months with no trees. And let’s for gigglessake say that 3-4 immediate neighbors all want a treehouse of their own andsimilar is scope, the HOA would almost have to approve because the precedenthas been set. Now you have a quasi condo row sitting in peoples back yards. I just bet the neighbors without treehouses would love that site!'

I ask the Board: What exactly would it take for his treehouse to get approved? Let's drop some cards on the table here, out in the open, and let us know that there truly was an option to maintain it...or not. Understood that the option to appeal is always there... but from what I'm reading it was a lost cause from the word go.


Weird, esp. here, to see such passion of conformity, chants that everyone must play by the same exact rules with no consideration for circumstance. Starting to forget what country I live in.... oh yeah, something about life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.


Peace

 

Tone it down? Are you kidding me??

Where was this comment when some of the homeowners had the audacity to assume the parents are "using the child's autism as an excuse to break the rules?"? That was DISGRACEFUL, and deserved a whistle-blow. Not this. This is the God's honest truth.

 

That was me and yes, I sit on the HOA's Modifications Sub-Committee.

I will speak for me an ME ONLY as there are several members, each with their own opinions and votes.

At no time would I have ever approved of the "existing" structure. There were several concerns but primarily, it is too big for a lot that size. From a somewhat simplistic approach, the Committee will generally not approve sheds over 80 sq ft, why would "I" (again, just my vote) approve something almost twice the size and stuck up in the air?

If Mr. K. had submitted an application with an appropriate sized structure, I can't say if it would have been approved, but it would have been given serious consideration, AS WE DO WITH EVERY APPLICATION.

And I would also like to make my personal opinion known about the "posting". NO board member that I am aware of has posted anything negative regarding Mr. K. on this forum or in the LTM article.

 

Man, did the HOA get vilified in the press. Nothing unusual there though.

 

Curtis,

As a member of the SubCommittee and during my short tenor (6 years or so), the Committee has in fact approved a few tree-houses.

With regard to Mr. Keister's application, it never reached the BHOA per say. The Modifications SubCommittee provided Mr. Keister with several options and modifications to his existing tree-house, that would have been approved.The main change was reducing the size to 80sqf.

If the homeowner was willing to reduce the size, I would have voted to approve his application. His tree house is almost double that size. But just to reiterate, the SubCommittee gave the homeowner several options so the tree-house could be approved and he rejected all of our options.

Mr.Keister choose to take the tree-house down and decided to not even try to appeal the Committee decision. Even the paper's story quotes him as saying: "because the changes the Committee provided do not fit my original vision and design of the tree-house".

Again not to beat the dead horse, but it is the sole responsibility of the homeowner to initiate the appeals process, not the HOA or Subcommittee. For what ever reason Mr. Keister made the decision to not even try to appeal the Committteee's decision. That said, the only time the Broadlands HOA would get involved is if the homeowner initiates the appeal process.

The Committee doesn't go out of our way to deny applications, we do everything we can to work with homeowners so their application(s) get approved.

 

I would like to thank all of the folks that volunteer to serve on the Board and various committees. It clearly seems to be a thankless job.

 

Amen!

 

Curtis-

I have been on the HOA Board for the past 13 years and was a member of the Modification Subcommittee for 10 years, although I am currently not on it.
I can tell you that some decisions that the Modification Subcommittee initially denied were approved on appeal.
I can tell you that decisions from the Modification Subcommittee have been overturned by the HOA Board of Directors.
I can tell you that subcommittee members sometimes spent HOURS deliberating over a SINGLE application to try and work with homeowners.
These are FACTS that anonymous bloggers don't want to know about.

I believe Broadlands to be extremely flexible in our rules. In fact, I have been very deliberate in ensuring that our HOA does NOT unnecessarily impede on Homeowners here.

We have fairly simply rules to follow for applications. This owner appears to have decided not to attempt the appeals process, and take a one-sided story to the media.
Now, you seem to want the HOA to follow the rules of news stories and blog comments to determine how we operate.
Sorry, but I don't agree.

I can't comment on the specifics of this case because it has never reached the Board. When issues like this do come to us, I generally talk to Modification Subcommittee members to understand the background, read the written reports, and visit the site. The homeowner also has the opportunity to make a presentation to the Board to present their case.

I CAN tell you we have approved treehouses in the past. I can tell you that things I consider are size, location, and impact on neighboring properties. You could take two identical treehouses and one may be appropriate on one lot, but not another. This is similar to storage sheds. We have guidelines on size, but have approved larger/smaller sizes/types based on location, lot size and configuration, and impact on adjacent properties.
I hope you are getting the sense that Broadlands has anything but a "passion for conformity."
I can give you many examples of where Broadlands provides flexibility while other HOAs demand conformance. Want a deck in Belmont Country Club? It can be any color, as long as it is white!

 

I agree with VaCliff on this...This is one of the MOST accommodating HOAs I have ever encountered in my homeowning years in VA.