Last month, WIA directors invited homeowners and lot owners to read
and make suggestions to the Board's re-written guidelines for how
homeowners must comply with our community's protective covenants
(also known as deed restrictions). These guidelines,
titled "Waterwood Policies", supposedly offer a dumbed-down version
of our protective covenants. The covenants are a verbose list of 39
rules for making homes and landscaping "aesthetically pleasing", and
if adhered to, provide community continuity, thereby preserving and
enhancing our investment in a house at Waterwood.

Waterwood Watchdog read the re-written "Waterwood Policies" and was
disappointed in the content and quality of some of the writing.
Hopefully, enough members will howl in protest and insist on a minor
re-write. If no one protests, the WIA Board directors at their
February 16th meeting will probably approve the guidelines as
currently written.

The problem with the re-written "Waterwood Policies" is that it
invites continued misunderstanding and controversy among homeowners.
For example, it doesn't address permissible design and construction
materials of prefabricated and homemade lawn artifacts, doghouses,
car ports, utility sheds, and greenhouses. Last year, for example, a
prefabricated aluminum car port was blessed by WIA's architectural
control board (also known as the ACB which has enforcement powers to
uphold our protective covenants). Their approval was clearly a
violation of the spirit of our protective covenants.

The protective covenant against removing native growth, for another
example, continues to be muddled in the "Waterwood Polices". As
currently explained, it is still unclear whether a tree or bush with
a trunk less than 19 inches in circumference can be removed without
permission. The re-written guidelines seemingly allow dogwoods,
palmetto, yaupon and other native understory plants to continue to
fall through the cracks of the ACB approval process and to be removed
without permission. This is a flagrant disregard for the covenant
which requires us to "preserve as nearly as possible, the land in its
natural state".

Readers may be aware that the ACB has had a poor go of it lately.
Over the last four years, the ACB's purpose and structure has become
more aligned to a Keystone Cops policing body rather than as a
beneficial community program. In fact, many WIA directors have
refused to serve on the ACB due to its poor community image. Their
enforcement of our protective covenants has been viewed as heavy-
handed and arbitrary rather than as a beneficial service. In the
last few years, the ACB has illegally demanded several homeowners to
move their satellite antennas to a roof, has approved a cheap metal
car port which doesn't blend harmoniously with the natural
environment nor is architecturally compatible with other structures
in the neighborhood, has failed to establish a limit on lawn
ornaments (resulting in at least two homes resembling roadside flea
markets), has overlooked or approved the removal of native trees in
non-construction areas, and has failed to make any progress in
persuading negligent homeowners to keep their homes or
landscaping "esthetically pleasing". Despite the enforcement process
to turn negligent homeowners into conscientious homeowners, every
subdivision has at least one consistently negligent homeowner, and we
all know who they are, including the ACB directors.

Will these re-written "Waterwood Policies" solve these ongoing
problems and clarify muddled concepts? Hardly. Instead of
enlightening and educating homeowners about our 39 protective
covenants (which are supposedly hard to understand), Waterwood
Watchdog finds the verbose covenants easier to understand than the
revised and dumbed-down "Waterwood Policies". One small example is
the erroneous usage of "satellite dish" and "antenna" as different
objects and therefore different rules apply. The satellite "dish",
however, is an antenna so the rules don't make sense.

Here are other examples of poor writing which confuse us, rather than
enlighten us:

"Clear cutting, removal, or destruction of most or all trees or
native growth on a lot is expressly prohibited". Does this
mean "all", "some" or "most" yaupon and palmetto can be removed
without permission?

"Landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and adequate manner".
Does this mean dog kennels or doghouses, as long as the surrounding
landscape is "neat", need not be screened out of view from the
street?

"Soliciting or canvassing of any kind for commercial purposes is
prohibited. Except for daily newspapers, distribution or delivery of
flyers . . . is prohibited." The Supreme Court last year allowed
political and religious canvassers to visit homes in restricted
homeowner associations and to distribute flyers and other material,
but the writer of these guidelines apparently is unaware of this fact.

"Outdoors burning of any material . . . is expressly prohibited. When
a burn ban is in effect . . . open outdoor fires of any kind within
Waterwood are prohibited." Does this mean that open burning is
prohibited but tolerated, but when a burn ban is in effect, open
burning will most definitely not be tolerated?

"No fences or walls shall be erected or maintained nearer to the
front of any lot than the front building line." Does this mean the
front fence can't be erected closer than the required 25 feet in
depth from the front lot line, even if the house is only 26 feet from
the front lot line? Wouldn't it look funny to have a front fence
located one foot in front of the house? Does this also mean that
side fences must also not be erected closer than the required side
setback of five feet, and that rear fences must also comply with rear
setbacks? What is the purpose of keeping fences on or behind required
housing setbacks?

All fences and walls on any lot shall not exceed six feet in
height. . and must be of ornamental iron, wood, or masonry
construction." Does this mean it's OK to have a vinyl or metal car
port, but it's not OK to erect a vinyl or metal fence? Wouldn't that
look funny, if a homeowner were allowed to use incongruent
materials? Why six feet high? Wouldn't that resemble a fortress?
Just because one homeowner has already erected a fortress six feet
high around his lot doesn't mean we all should be allowed to erect
fortresses around our lots.

In its present form, the "Waterwood Policies" do a poor job of
clarifying and making sense of some of our protective covenants. Nor
do the "Waterwood Policies" explain how homeowners shall live up to
the spirit of our covenants – to "preserve as nearly as possible, the
land in its natural state". There is a certain irony in the ACB
allowing homeowners to import and grow non-native green lawns and
other non-native trees and vegetation, following the removal of
native plants, thus changing the character of our piney woods
community . . . the very reason most of us were attracted to
Waterwood in the first place.

The piney woods of Waterwood, by the way, to the west of Waterwood
Parkway are gone. This week and last week, very extensive logging of
pines and hardwood is taking place, just out of view to the west side
of Waterwood Parkway. For those of you who have never had the
pleasure of visiting those 3,000 acres of forest, you'll never know
what Waterwood has lost. For those of us who have had the pleasure
of walking and riding in this forest, it is a sad loss for wildlife
and for humans. Since Jacinto Investments will reap millions by over-
logging (not selectively logging as they had originally stated) and
has no plans to replant, the desecration of this forest is one more
nail in the coffin of our piney woods environment.

If you would like to read and comment on the revised "Waterwood
Policies", contact WIA at toll-free 1-866-891-7711 or locally at 891-
7710 to obtain a copy of this document. If you cannot attend the
meeting on February 16th, you can email your concerns to ACB director
Mike Burney at mburney@...

END