January 24, 2013 at 11:19 am #6863Anonymous
Why did you buy property in Three Rivers, for us it was because of its uniqueness. On one lot you can have a camp trailer and the next may be your dream home and it’s ok. The problem for many years the rules we have, were never enforced and now it seems we have too many rules. Maybe the owners /architectural committee (AC) should look at themselves and ask have I broken the rules, or did I benefit from the last owner breaking the rule. You should also ask??? When you first drove through Three Rivers if you didn’t like what you see why did you by here? Now for the rules #1 buy co. permits (if required) rule #2 if the permanent structure is more than 16 feet tall and or will block your adjacent neighbors view you must summit sight plan and structural drawing for review by AC (if you’re not Sure ask your neighbor then get it in writing) rule #3 there is to be no half demoed trailer/buildings or junk piles for more 9 months. We have not been hear as long as others but we liked Three Rivers more before the heavy enforcement of the LOA rules and the lawsuit that came from it.January 24, 2013 at 9:08 pm #6864Shawn TaylorParticipant
I completely agree. Also, if Jefferson county doesn’t require a permit for it, (small storage shed) then the AC should not get involved with it.January 24, 2013 at 9:38 pm #6865Carol FuchsParticipant
As one person who has only been around for thirty or so years. I have not found the AC to be out of line with what We the owners voted for. Of course there will be a few oxen gored but would you rather return to people burning insulation off wire so that the bare copper can be sold! Does the thought of a rotting corpse of a camper and three or four dead cars and every other scrap of crap people have dragged in appeal to you. We are making progress and I for one am sure glad that the people who have stepped forward to help have done so in an honest manner! We can blame everyone else or we can work for progress. JERRY FUCHSJanuary 24, 2013 at 9:58 pm #6866Shawn TaylorParticipant
I don’t see any “blaming” going on here, and as far as derelict campers and cars and such, are’nt those already covered between county zoning ordinances and our exististing rules. All I am saying is lets address the need before writing rules. Time’s change and if there is a need for a new rule, then it should be addressed. Also being a short timer (35 yrs) I see one of the biggest problems faceing us is not a lack of rules but of enforcement.January 26, 2013 at 2:02 am #6867Joe ParrottParticipant
As the current chair of the Architectural Committee I’d like to share my thoughts on this topic. For the past 9 months the AC has been conducting a full review of our current development rules. All are found in the Declaration of Covenents, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). What we found is that the development rules are very unclear, inconsistent, and limited. We actually have very little that we review that is not already reviewed by Jefferson County Planning and Building.
We have also been actively seeking landowner input on what the development rules should be. There has been a discussion forum on this website for the past three months that got very little activity.
The AC is just as concerned as many of you are about the current rules. However, before we propose changes we really need to know what you as landowners want. I suspect the answer lies somewhere between our current limited,unclear and inconsistent rules and Sunriver’s 51 page development rules book that requires approval to hang a bird feeder in a tree (yep, it’s really in their rules).
Please attend the Annual Meeting in March. The AC will present information about the state of our current rules and the work we’ve been doing to try to improve the situation. We will also be conducting a detailed landowner survey to determine what YOU, as landowners, want. Until we fully understand your wishes we can’t move forward to make the situation better. Finally, there will be NO changes to current rules unless landowners approve changes by a vote sometime in the future. In this case it will require 75% approval to change anything.
So please help with this effort by letting us know what you do want, participate in the landowners survey at the Annual Meeting, and be patient beccause making the good changes will take time.February 6, 2013 at 4:27 am #6868Charlene & Jim LockmanParticipant
In regard to the “Landowner Input” request, I would like to comment on an experience we had about two years ago. When we decided to have our nephew, a LICENSED BUILDER, build a roof over our pontoon boat that was parked alongside our garage/storage shed He had drawn up very substantial plans on his computer and he began by digging holes for posts to be set in concrete. He had a couple posts already in and the next time he came to our property to continue working, there was a posted notice from the county requiring a Building Permit, etc. and to stop all further building. We were informed by the 3R Architectural Committee we were required to have a licensed “ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEER” draw up plans and then submit them to the county in order to be approved and receive a Building Permit for the ROOF over our boat!
The end result was at an ADDITIONAL nearly $1,000 extra in costs to us for this roof! In my opinion, the additional costs were due to being micromanaged to the point of absurdity with completely unnecessary stipulations for an “ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEER” (several hundred dollars) to draw up plans for this specific structure.
Having been a 3R landowner for 42 years, I have seen many, many structures built that I feel certain were not required to have an Architectural Engineer retained to produce acceptable plans! NEEDLESS-TO-SAY, I am STILL SIZZLING!!! Things appear to have gotten way “out-of-hand” …just my personal opinion.February 16, 2013 at 9:55 pm #6869Richard GrimstadParticipant
I completely agree with the absurdity of having a engineer being involved in any way in building a simple lien to roof, look around at the rest of buildings in 3r, I think this kind of micro managing is totally absurd, you are just padding the pockets of engineers with no real gain to the home owner, if we wanted to live in a place like that we would have bought property in blacke butt ,the Oregon building codes cover what ever is necessary in these kind of projects. R grimstadFebruary 27, 2013 at 6:40 am #6870
I agree, keep the rules at a minimum.February 27, 2013 at 6:42 am #6871
You’re exactly right.
c.pettitFebruary 27, 2013 at 6:47 am #6872
You couldn’t have said it better.
c.pettitMarch 12, 2013 at 2:12 am #6873Clay&Kim EmeryParticipant
I have been an owner for 21 years and have seen many things change, mostly for the good. We built a house in 2009 and had no problems at all with AC or Jeff county. Builder drew the drawings and everything was OK. I guess that must have changed. Keep up yor good work AC, because there sure needs to be some controls.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.