Development Ruined by Idiots!

Breaking News!

The New Board Sides with the Old ARC!

According to our board, this fence does not violate the feeling of territorial openness? In the business they call this a “Spite” Fence, serving no purpose but to piss off your neighbors.

Territorial Openness My Ass

See the most current information at the bottom.

To the Board, <—Here’s their Information

Seems like the ARC should take a remedial course in reading and comprehension. Anyone with a six grade education can understand the rule on “no border fences”, “no fencing over 5 feet”, etc.

So will the Donzellis have to provide access for, painting and shrubbery that’s required for screening? Turns out the contractor just made themselves at home on the Donzelli property to finish the noncomplaint fence.

And people argue with me about subbing out things we aren’t capable of handling. The list of approvals that go against our rules is quite long.

Mike, I ask that you get into this please. We can’t have the ARC approving construction that doesn’t fit into this landscape and is against our rules. They are ruining the landscape along with neighbor relationships.Thanks

From Mike on September 12th

Greetings Jim, Colleen, and Mark, The WROA board has received your concerns about the fences through various emails. The board and ARC are working to address these issues with both fences. Sincerely, Mike

Not a word since. I was hoping for better community relationships with the BARC, with new volunteers. Business as usual, anything controversial goes into the black hole 🕳️!

What Could Have Been!

The red line represents 20 feet from the property line and 42″ tall.
So much for my territorial view, now blocking what was a great view.
Contractor trespassing while building a noncompliant fence on the Donzelli property

It’s a shame that our ARC would approve a structure that doesn’t meet Deschutes County code not to mention our own Rules & Regulations. So, who is liable?

And what was the justification, since fences are “Discouraged”? I love being outside and now a third of my frontage view has been hidden by a new noncomplaint fence which was approved by the ARC.

Before the planks went up I contacted the board indicating that this new fencing was not meeting the intent of the rules on fencing. They assured me that it did. I didn’t want my neighbor to spend his time and money unnecessarily on removing a section of fencing, that’s why I contacted the board early before the posts were planted.

When the ARC approves a project they need to assure the project actually was implemented per the approved application. All professional permitting agencies require a final inspection when the project is declared complete. Something that WROA doesn’t do and everyone seems to know it.

And here is a picture of the “5 foot” tall side yard fencing that serves no purpose. He builds it taller than 5 feet but throws down some gravel to try to meet the intent of the rule. The intent is to minimize the visual impact on the territory. His fencing doesn’t come close to accomplishing that intent.

Most all outside fences match the house or trim color which does a much better job when it comes to blending in. These fences serve no purpose and are a blight on our division”s landscape.

Taller than the required 5 foot height.

What a shame! What a beautiful setting ruined by fences, exposed RVs, shacks and lighting left on all night.

So ask yourself, would you be bothered if everyone broke the rules in a similar fashion? Once the Camel gets his nose under the tent, there’s no turning back.

The Board approved the new fencing that violates our rules!

  1. No Fencing can be constructed in the front yard 20 foot setback
  2. Fencing will be screened with vegetation
  3. Fencing to match the color of the primary structure
  4. Fencing shall not exceed 5 feet in height
  5. And the county states, no fencing shall exceed 42 inches in height for front yard fencing.
  6. Fencing will not block territorial openness

What could have been!