Board meeting tonight at 7 p.m.

Just a reminder. There could be an important vote on whether the cell tower site will be designated as “common” property.

Also, I received this item (below) from President Su Nogay a few days and just forgot to post it earlier. It comes in response to a question about the legal “permanence” of tonight’s vote on the cell tower site; in other words, what kind of assurances do we have that, in the future, all of this progress toward protecting our greenbelt won’t be easily overturned the next time a cell provider tries to woo the HOA with a big-money offer? President Nogay’s response is below. (Additionally, here are the HOA’s covenants as they apply to the various parks in Shady Hollow; these would come into play if/when the cell tower site is designated as “common area.”)

As always, comments pro and con are welcome. Cheers.

———-

From President Su Nogay:

“Activities of past Boards and Future Boards are beyond the current Boards control.

Why the area was given to the HOA in the designation it was is open to question, but it is what it is.

What future Boards and members do is also beyond this Board control.

What I can tell you is this: this Board (at the request of Parks Chairman Bruce Kennedy) is having the Association Lawyer write up the legal documents to designate the land in question to “Commons”.

These legal documents once passed at the October 30th meeting, will be signed and filed at Travis County.  This is as legal as it gets.  A copy of this document will be made available at the October 30 th board meeting to anyone who attends and will be published in the Shady Hollow Highlights for all to see.  It is important to understand that by converting this property to Common’s that means that all land that is owned by the Association falls under a set of covenants or is commons.  There is no deception happening here.

The individual who asked the question is correct.  A motion passed in a meeting can simply be undone by a motion at another meeting.  This is not the Boards intent on this matter.

The Board recognizes that the insecurity that exists in the community on this matter must be addressed.  Bruce has informally received agreement from the Board that they will pass the motion to convert that land to Commons at the October 30th meeting.  I will (President Nogay) will sign the legal documents and those documents will be filed at the County prior to the November 12th membership meeting.

The answer to your question is a matter of trust and this point.  One must trust and believe that this will be done.

If you look at how the Board has handled this situation you will see they have done exactly what they have officially said they would.  They have evaluated the situation by looking at all the issues and have made decisions based on what they felt is best for the Community.  Specifically they evaluated the “Cell tower offer” determined to positive and negative impact on the community and ultimately made a decision.  It can be assumed they will continue to do what they say they will.

Some may argue how well, how slow or fast it took them to accomplish this, but they cannot argue that they have done what they said they would.

The Board cannot take responsibility for people’s doubts.  They can only move as they always have – honestly following the directives they have been given and in the direction they feel is best for the community.

Trust and belief is part of each member’s right to choice.  The Board hopes that their record will garner the trust of the membership and have had their eye on the end goal all along.  That goal and privilege was to do their jobs as elected to do and make sure that all interests of the Association are considered in each decision.”

HOA Board to make cell tower site ‘common area’

I just got back from meeting with Shady Hollow HOA Board member Bruce Kennedy and office manager Marie White. They invited me to sit down and hear the Board’s side of the story, which I was happy to do. They were cordial and kind in laying out some of the “backstory” surrounding the recent announcement of a community vote on a proposed bylaw change. Bruce had some very compelling information to share—information that had been discussed at the last parks committee meeting, on Oct. 15, but had yet to be publicized here on this blog.

Here’s the 30-second version, followed by more analysis and elaboration:

Bruce said that, at its Oct. 30 meeting, the HOA Board plans to propose and approve a measure that would redesignate the “no man’s land” behind the community center—the same controversial site that could have been home to a cell tower—as “common area.” This might sound like a legal technicality, but actually it’s a huge step forward in ensuring that no cell towers (or like structures) are placed in the greenbelt. Ever.

First, by making the land “common area,” it would fall under the normal regulations and bylaws of the association, and thus it would be a lot harder for any HOA Board to get a cell tower approved:

Article III. Property Rights in the Common Areas, Section I. Owner’s Easements of Enjoyment (C) in the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Shady Hollow, Sections 4 and 6 reads: “The right of the Declarant or Association to dedicate or transfer all or any part of the Common Area to any public agency, authority, or utility for such purposes and subject to such conditions as may be agreed to by the members. No such dedication or transfer shall be effective unless an instrument signed by two-thirds (2/3) of the Association members agreeing to such dedication or transfer has been executed and recorded.” [Italics added]

(You can download the complete bylaws and other community documents here.)

Second, since the language of the proposed bylaw change focuses on “common area” property, a vote in favor of the bylaw would more concretely secure the safety of our greenbelt against future encroachments by utility development.

So, this is very good news. Granted, this kind of designation probably should have happened long ago, or at least at the last board meeting. After all, that was the intention all along when the MUD gave the land to Shady Hollow, as evidence has clearly demonstrated—it was supposed to be “parkland,” not a potential cell tower site. But, nonetheless, any move the Board makes to call the greenbelt a “common area” is a welcome development.

This was Bruce’s desire all along, he said. As head of the parks committee, he was the one who suggested at the last board meeting that the land be designated a park and called Turtle Park. So, he’s looking forward to ending this dispute once and for all; he believes that making the former MUD property in question a “common area” for the association would accomplish that, and I tend to agree.

The bottom line: If the HOA Board does indeed move to make the land “common area,” we ought to get behind them fully in this action. Let’s attend the Oct. 30 board meeting and show ‘em our support.

Finally, there was one other thing worth mentioning that came out of meeting today. Marie, the office manager, noted that from the beginning of the cell tower controversy, the HOA and its board of directors have been hamstrung in what they can and cannot say publicly because of ongoing litigation related to this issue. That’s certainly a valid consideration, so I suggested that she include that explanation on the official Shady Hollow website or otherwise communicate that to all the members.

A word about comments:

If you have thoughts you’d like to share on this issue, please do so in the comments section, or send an e-mail to shadyhollowneighbors@gmail.com and I’ll consider it for a future blog posting. Over the weekend we had to shut down comments on a previous post (since yanked) because someone started a rather personal and vindictive flame war against cell tower opponents. So, as a result, here’s the new rule for the comments section: Unless you post your full name and a legit e-mail address, I won’t approve your comment for this discussion board. Real identities only. That should keep it clean.

MUD drops plan for cell tower on Brodie

This welcome bit of news comes from Dwayne Dietrich, a board member for the Estates of Shady Hollow and the primary driver against the MUD’s proposal for the cell tower near the fire station on Brodie. For background on this issue, read about ESHHOA’s initial reaction and its recent plea to the MUD board.

It’s worth noting the consideration and responsiveness of the Shady Hollow MUD Board of Directors; they were cool-headed and open to neighbors’ concerns throughout the process. Why the Shady Hollow HOA Board of Directors couldn’t manage to handle its own cell tower issue with the same kind of speed, transparency, and aplomb is rather puzzling indeed.

Here’s the letter announcing the news from Dwayne:

Shady Hollow MUD has decided NOT to move forward on the cell tower proposal as of 10/7.  We are very pleased of this and thanks so much for your support.  We could not have done this without the help of the blog, signs, and neighbors like you who care about the Shady Hollow quality of life and it’s future.  I would especially like to thank Seth Lewis for allowing me to post on the blog and Carol Vance for the “No Cell Tower” signs.  There are many others that offered words of encouragement, e-mails, and more and on behalf of the Estates of Shady Hollow Board, and I really appreciate that. 

We will be sending a letter to the Shady Hollow MUD Board thanking them for listening to us and our willingness to work productively in the future.  We appreciate they actually listened to the neighborhoods concerns and decided in a timely manner.  Big kudos to them for the sense of urgency on making a decision and of course their intent to not allow a cell tower to be constructed.

We appreciate Gerald Daugherty for his support as well.  This was my first attempt at getting an elected official involved, and I am very appreciative he picked up the phone and called me back to discuss this and understand the issues.  He supported this cause and helped further communicate this to the Shady Hollow MUD Board. 

The next step the Estates of Shady Hollow would like to do is to try to get the future land-use amended on the MUD property behind Edwards Hollow Run.  That way, we don’t have to fight in the future on a commercial development or land-use not in congruence with a MUD’s purpose.  We requested this as part of our no cell tower request to the MUD.  We hope they will work with the surrounding neighborhoods to draft an agreement on this in the future.

We very much applaud the Shady Hollow MUD’s intention to build a new 24 hour Fire Station there as originally intended.  We will take the land-use amendment up with the Shady Hollow MUD Board in the future and ask for their consideration.  For now, we can breathe a bit easier that the cell tower issue is now behind us and we can move on.

Shady Hollow continues to be a place we call home and we have made many great memories and friends here.  Thanks again for helping us. 

Best,

Dwayne Dietrich

Recap of last week’s SHHOA board meeting

What follows is an account written by a neighbor who went to the meeting. Any additional observations by others who attended are welcome in the comments section.

Essentially: the end of one neighborhood battle in Shady Hollow Thursday night has set the stage for a new fight.

Just minutes after a group of Estates of Shady Hollow residents voiced their great displeasure at a potential cell phone tower near their homes, Shady Hollow Homeowners Association board president Su Nogay made it clear negotiations with T-Mobile had reached a screeching halt.

Nogay, along with board member David Anderson, said a special August meeting with T-Mobile didn’t go so well. Anderson made a motion, which passed unanimously, to cease any prolonged negotiations for any T-Mobile cell phone towers.

Nogay and Anderson claimed T-Mobile made several stipulations pertaining to the deal that drew their concern, as well as that of the association’s lawyer. For example, the association would have to keep much of the contract details, including the fees paid, secret.

That was a concern “since this is an open records association,” Nogay told board members and more than two dozen guests attending the meeting.

Anderson claimed T-Mobile also reversed themselves on many of the assertions made during a board presentation this summer. For example, T-Mobile said it wasn’t talking to anyone else in the area though it was clearly in talks with the Shady Hollow Municipal Utility Board, which met earlier in the evening across the hall at the community center to discuss the matter.

“They lied to our faces,” Anderson said.

The comments and vote came following an executive session where the board discussed matters with the association’s attorney. The association board also addressed the “Vote No Cell Tower” signs issue, saying now that a petition for a vote on related bylaws were submitted, the signs are considered “political,” and therefore not a covenant violation, signaling an end to the photos and notices sent to some neighbors displaying the signs in their yards.

During the discussion of the special meeting, board member Elaine Walker raised questions regarding the authority to hold such a special meeting that Nogay, Anderson and three past presidents attended with T-Mobile. It’s still unclear why the meeting was held in this manner, at least without asking the rest of the board whether they would like to participate.

Nogay said she only invited the past three presidents, and Walker wasn’t one of them. Walker attempted to expand Anderson’s motion killing the T-Mobile cell tower discussions to other cell phone providers, but Anderson declined. (Later in the meeting, a motion by board member Bruce Kennedy was passed declaring the board would not “entertain” offers from any other cell phone providers. At some piont in the meeting, Kennedy thanked residents for their patience and said he was suprised there wasn’t more excitment at the cell phone tower resolution to kill the negotitions.)

The meeting then went into some regular business, such as a request for a special booster club for the Bowie High School class of 2012 to hold regular weekday meetings at the community center at no cost (which was later approved).

The mood on the board became tense again when John Roop brought up a missing proxy in his public record. Someone said the proxy, sent by Nogay to Anderson via fax, was not “exercised,” so it would not be part of the record. Nogay and Anderson began to question why it was even needed, and Anderson said he was concerned it was for “malicious” intent.

Walker said she wanted it for her own personal business. Nogay asked whether that was a legitimate reason, and Roop said no reason was necessary to make the request. Regardless, Nogay said it was on her mother’s computer in New York, and since her mother was having a medical procedure, she could not be bothered. Nogay said perhaps when she is in New York for Thanksgiving she could ask, but it could be next summer before she gets it and by then “I’ll be off the board.”

When Walker asked where the faxed copy was, another board member called a point of order since the discussion had moved on to a new topic. Nogay thanked the board member.

Later, the discussion then turned to Kennedy’s proposal to designate the now-former T-Mobile cell phone tower site “Turtle” park instead, which drew applause and a few standing ovations from those in the audience. The move would unexpectedly force the MUD to remove its materials from the site, and potentially call for a parks commitee meeting and subsequent volunteers to ready the site.

However, other board members raised concern that such a move was too rash and the board should check in with the neighbors immediately next to the potential parkland. Ironically, the discussion was a sharp departure from the intial cell phone tower talks, which did not include direct discussions with nearby neighbors who would have been affected.

Board members also wondered if the site should be designated a park or a nature preserve.
With at least one board member concerned about voting on the matter, it was postponed to the next meeting and Kennedy asked to collect names and emails of volunteers willing to help prepare the site to become a parkland.

With their 9 p.m. deadline approaching, the board went through other business quickly, and referred issues such as a new email policy to October’s meeting since it was “light,” Nogay said. However, the tense mood picked up again just as they got close to the last item on the agenda, setting the special meeting as a result of the petition to set new bylaws. In the end, a slighted Anderson said audience members could not talk back to him and with only Walker dissenting, they adjourned.

Now, the special meeting must be called by Nogay with a minimum of a 30-day notice and no more than 60.
In the end, the cell phone tower for SHHOA appears to be resolved, but whether board members can earn back support from their constituents, at least among the ranks of those who opposed the tower, remains to be seen. Meanwhile, the Estates are just starting up their fight.

TV news coverage of last night’s meetings

Watch KXAN’s coverage of the cell tower situation via this link.

The big SHHOA board meeting — what happened?

I wasn’t able to make tonight’s board meeting — which was quite unfortunate, as I looked forward to getting resolution on the cell tower issue, at least as far as the SHHOA is concerned. So, I’m depending on the rest of you out there. Can you fill us in on what happened? Give us your take on the proceedings, whether you attended the Shady Hollow HOA board meeting, the MUD’s meeting on the tower issue, or both.

Neighbors fight MUD’s plan for tower on Brodie

This comes from Dwayne Dietrich, who’s helping to organize opposition to the MUD’s plan to put a 100-foot cell tower on its acreage near the fire station on Brodie Lane: 

In the meeting tonight, I passed out a document [note: find additional background info here] with our concerns to the Shady Hollow MUD and the attendees.  I want to be completely transparent to the neighborhood residents, the Shady Hollow MUD, and the public.  Can you please kindly post on your blog.  I very much appreciate the support we had from the Shady Hollow neighborhoods tonight (The Villages of Shady Hollow, Shady Hollow, The Estates of Shady Hollow, Barker Ranch of Shady Hollow, Southland Oaks, etc.)

 

We have a lot more folks wanting more “No Cell Tower” signs. Thanks for all the support.

 

Thanks,

Dwayne

743-6725

A rendering of where the T-Mobile cell tower might be placed on MUD property. For illustrative purposes only.

 

Dwayne Dietrich Comments

Estates of Shady Hollow Resident

Estates of Shady Hollow Board Member – Vice President

 

Shady Hollow Municipal Utility District Meeting – September 18, 2008

 

Citizen Communications Comments:

INTRODUCTION:

My name is Dwayne Dietrich, and I serve on the Estates of Shady Hollow Home Owners Association (ESHHOA) Board of Directors, and I have lived in the Shady Hollow neighborhoods for over 8 years. (6 years in Shady Hollow – Whiskey River Drive and 2 years in the Estates of Shady Hollow – Edwards Hollow Run).

I am here today speaking to you not only as a resident of the Estates and Board Member, but as member of the surrounding Shady Hollow community my family calls home.

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS:

I will make our point very clear:

The ESHHOA Board of Directors does not support the construction of a cell tower behind Edwards Hollow Run or in other residential areas in the neighborhoods of Shady Hollow.

 

The ESHHOA Directors believe that Cell Towers:

1)       Negatively affect the property values of surrounding houses,

2)       May inflict possible health risks, and

3)       Serve as an eye sore thereby for those affected thereby diminishing the quality of life. 

 

Not only is the ESHHOA Board against cell towers being built near our backyards, we do not support cell towers being built in the other residential areas in the neighborhoods of Shady Hollow. (Shady Hollow, Barker Ranch of Shady Hollow, the Villages of Shady Hollow, the Estates of Shady Hollow, Southland Oaks, etc.)  We do not believe moving the cell tower from Whiskey River Drive to behind Edwards Hollow Run or any of the other Shady Hollow Neighborhoods is the solution.

 

If you ask folks: “Would you like a cell tower near your backyard?  The answer you overwhelmingly get is:  “NO”

 

With that said, we have the following questions about the proposed cell tower.  This assumes the information we have obtained about the Shady Hollow MUD engaging with T-Mobile about a cell tower behind Edwards Hollow Run is accurate.  We expect these answers to be given today. 

 

I found out about this proposed cell tower from an e-mail communication from Seth Lewis after Gary Black spoke to him on the subject.  I am disappointed that the information I have obtained on the cell tower behind Edwards Hollow Run was very gray over the phone on the details.  I understand that the information to date communicated is from e-mails and phone calls and may not be accurate.  I hope today this can be cleared up.

Here are the concerns and questions we expect answers on which were prepared with the guidance of our legal counsel.

1.  MUDs are created and governed by Chapter 54 of the Texas Water Code, and are only granted certain designated powers (see §54.201) to be used to accomplish specific purposes (see §54.012).  The purposes all relate to maintaining the quality of water in the State of Texas (e.g., financing, constructing and maintaining storm water runoff systems, sanitary sewer, etc.).  We believe purchasing land and leasing it for a private commercial venture (i.e., the construction of a cell tower) is beyond the scope of the MUD’s statutory powers and purposes. 

If the Shady Hollow MUD Board disagrees with this, please cite a section in the Texas Water Code that authorizes this action?

2.  As with all MUDs, the Shady Hollow MUD was created solely for the purpose of serving the interests of its residents, including specifically the residents of the Estates of Shady Hollow, Shady Hollow, Barker Ranch, The Villages of Shady Hollow, etc..  This purpose includes, importantly, protecting the property values of the residents.  (For example, a MUD is authorized to file suit to enforce declarations or other private deed restrictions to ensure that communities and related property values are maintained.)  In this instance, Shady Hollow MUD’s proposal to allow a cell tower to be constructed on MUD property immediately adjacent to lots owned by its residents not only does NOT promote property values, it actually will cause the property values of some residents and MUD customers to DECLINE, which is exactly the opposite of what the MUD is supposed to be doing.

3.  The MUD’s Board has a lawful duty not to act in a manner which oversteps the specific statutory authority of the MUD and has a further duty to protect the interest of its residents, including the related property values.  Entering into this cell tower lease is a breach of both of those duties, and exposes the MUD to legal liability.

4.  In conclusion, we ask that the MUD’s Board delay any action on the lease until it has addressed both of these issues by: (i) obtaining a legal opinion as to whether the cell tower lease is within the scope of its statutory authority; and (ii) consulting with the residents in detail about the proposed cell tower lease and its impact on those residents and their property values.

 

————————————————————————————————-

Other questions we expect open and honest answers on:

       Is the Shady Hollow MUD working a deal with T-Mobile to build a 100+ foot cell tower adjacent to their new Manchaca Fire Station on the land the MUD owns just south of the existing fire station at Edwards Hollow Run and Brodie Lane?

       When did the Shady Hollow MUD enter into discussions with T-Mobile on the cell phone tower?  When I reviewed the plans for the Fire station several months ago, a cell tower was not in the plan documents.

       What drove the discussion to proposing a cell tower behind Edwards Hollow Run?  Was this because of the opposition from the residents against the cell tower behind Whiskey River ?

       When was the Shady Hollow HOA Board of Directors notified of the cell tower deal that the MUD was working on?  Did any of the Shady Hollow HOA participate in the negotiations to date with T-mobile and the Shady Hollow MUD?  If so, please give details.

 

       What public input have you gathered about the cell tower behind Edwards Hollow Run to date?  Is this the first meeting on the subject?  Please give dates, times, and audiences.

 

       The community has been given no opportunity for feedback until now.  Why is that?

 

       What is it that the Shady Hollow MUD thinks, gives the Shady Hollow MUD-Board the authority to enter into this type of income-producing contract with T-mobile?  

 

       What is the size of the proposed tower?

 

       Where is the location of the proposed cell tower behind Edwards Hollow Run?

 

       What is the revenue stream contract being proposed by T-Mobile?

 

       What does the Shady Hollow MUD need the money for?

 

       Which MUD constituents does that money go too and for what purpose?

 

       Is there any other cell towers planned that the Shady Hollow MUD knows about?  If yes, please give details?

 

Again, in conclusion:

 

The ESHHOA Board of Directors does not support the construction of a cell tower behind Edwards Hollow Run or in other residential areas in the neighborhoods of Shady Hollow.

 

We ask that the MUD’s Board delay any action on the lease until it has addressed both of these issues by: (i) obtaining a legal opinion as to whether the cell tower lease is within the scope of its statutory authority; and (ii) consulting with the residents in detail about the proposed cell tower lease and its impact on those residents and their property values.

 

Thank you for your time.

 

Dwayne Dietrich

 

Estates of Shady Hollow:  http://www.eshhoa.org/

 

Cell Tower Opposition in Shady Hollow:  Group formed to oppose the construction of a cell tower in the greenbelt behind Whiskey River Drive .  Website:  http://shadyhollow.wordpress.com/

Source: Board ready to drop cell tower issue

Ahead of Thursday’s “doubleheader” of board meetings—one by the Shady Hollow HOA, the other by the Shady Hollow MUD, and both in the community center on Doe Run—here’s some potentially big news:

The SHHOA Board is expected to drop negotiations with T-Mobile altogether, without an actual up-or-down vote on T-Mobile’s “official” bid, which has yet to be disclosed. (I got this from a source close to the board who asked not to be named, but I take this information on good authority.) Translation: the tower issue will be dead … for Shady Hollow HOA residents, anyway.

That’s because the Shady Hollow MUD is poised to pick up whether the HOA leaves off. It’s happy to put the tower on 10 acres it owns near the fire station on Brodie Lane and pocket the extra revenue, sources told me. This, of course, is bad news for other neighborhoods south of Shady Hollow—such as the Estates of Shady Hollow, which aired its concerns on this blog. And it’s bad news for all of us, really, because no 100-foot cell tower of any kind belongs in a wholly residential area like Shady Hollow, and certainly not along our main artery through the neighborhood.

So, what does all of this mean for Thursday’s meetings? For those of us who care about this issue and plan to attend, we’re forced to split our time and attention. But given that there are strong indications the SHHOA Board will drop this issue altogether—although, in some ways, I’ll believe it when I see it!—I suggest we throw our support behind the folks to the south of us and help them fight the good fight to keep the cell tower out of any part of our neighborhood.

From the HOA to the MUD, the drama goes on.

(p.s. It should be noted that none of these developments take away from our ongoing effort to gather signatures that would lead to a special meeting at which we could change the SHHOA bylaws, to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. That effort still moves forward, and for good reason.)

New time/place for MUD meeting on cell tower

To accommodate more people at the next Shady Hollow MUD board meeting, the time and place have been changed as follows. (One thing I noticed: Doesn’t this conflict with the regularly scheduled Shady Hollow HOA board meeting at 7 p.m. the same night, same place? Maybe they’re using two different rooms.) This info from Dwayne Dietrich, who’s on the board of the Estates of Shady Hollow HOA, just to the south of us.

Date:               Thursday, September 18, 2008
Time:              6:30 pm

Location:        Shady Hollow Community Center
3303 Doe Run
East Room

More information:  Contact the MUD Office at 280-6622

Reaction to cell tower on MUD land: Estates of Shady Hollow HOA seeks to organize opposition

Letter to Shady Hollow Residents:

SUBJECT:  Please Read – Cell Tower Proposal Negatively Impacts Estates of Shady Hollow and Surrounding Neighborhoods

Hello:

My name is Dwayne Dietrich, and I serve on the Estates of Shady Hollow Home Owners Association (ESHHOA) Board of Directors, and I have lived in the Shady Hollow neighborhoods for over 8 years.

PURPOSE:
I am writing you to request your support to stop the proposed cell tower development behind Edwards Hollow Run.

I very much appreciate your time to read this e-mail, as it affects backyards of your fellow neighborhoods that share this great community of Shady Hollow.

I would like to thank Seth Lewis, Carol Vance, and Cheryl Bowcock for communicating with me on this issue.  They were very helpful, and I appreciate their support in letting me get the word out to you and the supply of “No Cell Tower” signs.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
From what we understand at this time, the Shady Hollow MUD has nearly finalized a deal with T-Mobile to build a 100+ foot cell tower adjacent to their new Manchaca Fire Station on the land the MUD owns just south of the existing fire station at Edwards Hollow Run and Brodie Lane.

We do not know if this cell tower behind Edwards Hollow Run is to be a replacement for the one proposed behind Whiskey River Drive or an additional cell tower.

Much of what the ESHHOA Board of Directors knows at this time is unofficial as the Shady Hollow MUD has not communicated directly with the ESHHOA Board of Directors.

When the ESHHOA Board requested more information from the Shady Hollow MUD last week when this issue became known to us, we were directed to attend the next Shady Hollow MUD meeting.  The meeting is:

Tuesday September 16 @ 6:30 pm at the Shady Hollow MUD Office located at 3910 Capistrano Trail.

THE ESTATES OF SHADY HOLLOW HOA BOARD POSITION:

We don’t want any cell towers built in the Shady Hollow neighborhoods.  Period.

The ESHHOA Board of Directors does not support the construction of a cell tower behind Edwards Hollow Run or in other residential areas in the neighborhoods of Shady Hollow.

The ESHHOA Directors are orchestrating contact with city and county officials as well as engaging legal counsel.  We have also notified the HOA Boards of the Villages of Shady Hollow and Barker Ranch and requested their support.

We individually supported the coalition that was formed to fight the Shady Hollow HOA placing a cell tower behind Whiskey River.  In fact, I used to live on Whiskey River for many years, and when I found out of this issue, I offered my support to stop the cell tower efforts and raised this issue to the ESHHOA Board and neighbors.

I recently read the article written by Seth Lewis on the Shady Hollow Blog (http://shadyhollow.wordpress.com) titled:  “How does a cell tower pass the equity test?”  As you know, a cell tower will reduce the quality of life and home values for those that have to bear the burden of the tower.  I feel this holds true if it is proposed to move from one neighborhood’s backyard to another’s or worse…be in both backyards.  I hope you would agree with me.

WHAT CAN YOU DO TO HELP US?

Attend the Shady Hollow MUD meeting on Tuesday the 16th at 6:30 pm at the Shady Hollow MUD Office -  3910 Capistrano Trail to learn more and have your voice heard.

If you wish, call the Shady Hollow MUD and ask them for more information at 280-6622

Thanks for your time.  If you would like to contact me to discuss more, please call or e-mail me.

Thanks,
Dwayne Dietrich
Estates of Shady Hollow
e-mail:  Dwayne_dietrich@yahoo.com
phone:  743-6725

Cell tower to be placed on MUD land; what next?

The Shady Hollow MUD (municipal utility district), a governmental entity that takes care of our water in this area, has reportedly struck a deal with T-Mobile to place a 100-foot cell tower on land the MUD owns near the fire station on Brodie Lane. A MUD board member told me of the plan, and a phone call to the MUD office confirmed the same, although I’m still waiting to hear from MUD management to get some follow-up details. I’ll post more when I have them.

This raises a number of questions left to be resolved, but perhaps the largest one is this: What does this mean for the proposed 120-foot cell tower that would sit on SHHOA land behind the community center? It appears as though the MUD board thinks it’s doing the association a favor by getting T-Mobile what it wants (a tower) while getting that tower away from SHHOA property … but it’s not quite that simple. As T-Mobile indicated from the beginning, it wants two cell towers in Shady Hollow, so we’re now left to wait for the other shoe to drop. Perhaps it’s now more likely than ever that T-Mobile is going to get its wish as the HOA board moves forward with negotiations.

We’ll have to see at the SHHOA board meeting this Thursday, Sept. 18, at 7 p.m.

Petition circulating in the neighborhood

We’re collecting signatures to call a special meeting at which the SHHOA bylaws can be amended so as to avoid this kind of cell tower fiasco in the future. If you’re interested in signing, or in helping collect signatures, please contact us at shadyhollowneighbors@gmail.com.

How does a cell tower pass the equity test?

I’ve been getting some phone calls — all encouraging, I might add — since my letter appeared in the Shady Hollow Highlights newsletter, which should have arrived in your mailboxes yesterday. I’m posting it here below, and encourage further discussion, pro and con.

Dear Neighbors and Board Members,

Let me suggest a hypothetical situation: What if we decided that the best way to fund our homeowners association would be to have different levels of payment in annual dues—the households in Section X of Shady Hollow would pay $400 a year while everyone else would pay $200 each.

The idea sounds preposterous, and the numbers of course are merely hypothetical. Yet, the notion of such inequality is not all that far-fetched. In fact, it illustrates well the decision facing the Board of Directors. Whether we love or hate the idea of a cell tower in Shady Hollow, we all must wrestle with this salient truth: Should some homeowners “pay” more than others? Or, alternatively, should the costs and benefits of the neighborhood be shared equally?

Let’s put this in the context of T-Mobile’s bid to build a cell tower in the greenspace behind the community center. Who would benefit from this deal? Everyone, in the sense that we all would enjoy the increased revenue a cell tower lease would provide our association. The key is that we’d all share in this benefit equally. That sounds great, right? And yet, the tower also would come at a cost—after all, there is no “free lunch” in economics. Someone is going to have to “pay” for this tower, in terms of diminished quality of life. (As my neighbor put it, “When I’m tired after work, and I want to relax on my back porch and have a beer, I don’t want to look out at a cell tower.” Indeed. Would you?)

So, we must ask: Who pays? Clearly, a cluster of homes on and around Whiskey River, Festus, Doe Run and other streets near the community center are going to bear the burden here—and they’ll have to bear it for everyone else. The cell tower, then, amounts to a “tax” on some residents of Shady Hollow while providing a free ride for others who don’t have to live near it. The tower provides a benefit, yes, but also comes at a price that is not shared equally among all of us.

Is this equitable? Is it any less fair than asking some homeowners to pay more in association dues than others?

My challenge to the Board of Directors and any residents who support the cell tower is to tackle this looming question that has gone unanswered: How do you justify a cell tower in our neighborhood when it requires a sacrifice that is NOT shared equally by all homeowners of Shady Hollow? Certainly, there are other means of raising funds for this association—and doing it in a way that is fair to everyone in our neighborhood, without discrimination against anyone.

As an aside, on the money issue: Even if T-Mobile offered us $1 million over 30 years, that would be roughly the same as us having a one-time increase of 6.7%—or $22—in our homeowners association dues. If we need that $1 million (or more) so dearly in this community, would it be so hard to have a small, incremental increase in association fees—we’re talking about 20 bucks per household—to cover that need, without unduly “taxing” one section of the neighborhood to achieve it?

Thus, the very equality of Shady Hollow is at stake here. Fairness is—or ought to be—a founding principle of this community: that we share equally in the responsibility to pay for, maintain, and enhance the quality of life in our beloved Shady Hollow.

I invite any member of the community to have a dialogue with me on these issues—openly, honestly, and with complete transparency. Feel free to call me at 280-3888, or send me an e-mail at seth.lewis@mail.utexas.edu. I look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,

Seth Lewis

Could T-Mobile put up the cell tower in the city parkland nearby? No way, officials say

UPDATE 9/6/08: We just spoke to another person in the know—a former parks official who lives in Baurele Ranch—and he repeated emphatically that there was no way a cell tower could go up in the City of Austin-owned parkland to the east of Shady Hollow. Given that some folks have been very concerned about this point—that T-Mobile says it could put the tower up just about anywhere it pleases, including in Austin parkland—we would encourage anyone with contradictory evidence to come forward with it. Is T-Mobile the source on that, or someone else? E-mail us at shadyhollowneighbors@gmail.com.

Good news for those who feared T-Mobile could build its cell tower next to Shady Hollow on the city-owned Slaughter Creek Greenbelt—thus leaving us with the eyesore without any chance of being compensated for our trouble. Well, it turns out those fears are unfounded: There’s good reason to believe a tower would have no chance of being placed on city parkland of any kind.

Jason Alexander, City of Austin (COA) Administrative Specialist and assistant to the Parks & Recreation Department (PARD) Acting Director Stuart Strong, as well as Ricardo Soliz, Division Manager for Planning, Design, and Construction and who also reports directly to Mr. Strong, have both said that not only is the city’s parks department unaware of any cell tower proposals for Austin parks, greenbelts, or nature preserves, but that any such proposal would probably be rejected for many reasons. One of those reasons: It simply would not meet Texas Parks and Wildlife code.

Both parks officials told us personally that no permanent cell tower currently exists on City of Austin parks, greenbelts, or nature preserves. Furthermore, should the parks department reject a cell tower proposal, the City Council or City Manager would have to step in and override the rejection for it to get approved. And even then there are hurdles because of state parks and wildlife codes.

The only known exception to this no-tower policy are temporary cell towers for the Austin City Limit’s Festival at Zilker Park, and the difficult approval process for these temporary towers begins many months in advance of the event. Given the City of Austin’s longstanding pride and interest in protecting their parks, greenbelts, and nature preserves, it is safe to say that the chances of T-Mobile building a cell tower within Slaughter Creek Greenbelt are almost nonexistent.

(NOTE: A former and a current board member have both expressed concern that T-Mobile could build the cell tower on the COA parkland, without any financial benefit to Shady Hollow. It is possible that other current board members may also share this concern. The above information will be forwarded to the SHHOA for their information, with a request that they investigate the matter if it continues to be a concern and inform residents of their findings at the next Shady Hollow Board Meeting.)

Correction coming on erroneous mailing

In response to its mistake on the earlier printing of our open letter to the neighborhood, Austin Printing and Mailing has issued the following retraction, which should be arriving in your mailboxes shortly this week:

Shady Hollow Resident,

We regret that we, Austin Printing and Mailing, made an error on the flier you recently received regarding the cell tower issue in Shady Hollow. The return address that we provided was shown as:

SHHOA
3233 Doe Run
Austin, TX 78748

Austin Printing and Mailing should NOT have referenced SHHOA. The return label reference to SHHOA was not requested by the individuals who created the flyer but was entirely an error on our (the printing company) part. There was at no time any intent by the creators of the flyer to label the return address in this manner. The flyer was created and produced by a group of your neighbors. The Shady Hollow Homeowners Association has no connection to this flier.

Sincerely,

Austin Printing and Mailing

Need some background on the tower issue?

UPDATE 8/25: We’re moving this post to the top, since several have mentioned that they want to know the “history” of this initiative. Perhaps this will help.

If you’d like to catch up on the major issues posed by the cell tower, this article (PDF download) of “citizen communication” should help. You can see the PDF of the July issue of the Shady Hollow newsletter (in which this appeared) by going here.

How would the tower really look?

OK, so it looks a little cartoonish, but basically the tower has been drawn in a bit darker so as to be visible in the photo, which it wasn't before. The height is unchanged.

UPDATE 8/25: This might be a better representation of what the tower would look like (the tower is darkened in a bit so you can actually see it against the washed-out sky).

——-

This is a key question, as it’s hard to envision to what extent a 120-foot cell tower would loom over the neighborhood. Some have suggested that the tower would hardly be seen through the trees.

So here’s some evidence: It’s an image furnished by T-Mobile, given to several residents who live on Whiskey River, that shows what the tower would look like from Festus Drive. (Note, too, that this is the view in the summer, when the trees are full … what is the view when the leaves are gone in the winter?)

What do you think? Leave a comment.

A rendering of the T-Mobile cell tower as viewed from Festus Drive, looking north toward the intersection with Whiskey River.

Ideas on raising money for the HOA?

This issue has stoked a lot of emotions and hurt too many feelings, unfortunately. Let’s all agree on one thing: We can communicate better and be neighborly in coming to a resolution of this divisive issue. To that end, let’s make sure we keep the comments on this blog civil — no personal attacks, especially against members of the board who probably feel very defensive right about now.

OK, with that said, how about this for a discussion starter: OK, if we need additional funds in the community to better stock our rainy-day fund, or to pursue new projects (a pool?) that would benefit the community’s image and value … how should we go about raising the extra money? A one-time increase in dues? What about an annual cost-of-living increase in dues? Personally, I think a regular increased indexed to inflation makes perfect sense — as the cost of everything goes up, of course we’re going to need more money to maintain facilities and such.

Any other ideas?

— Seth Lewis

Board to decide on tower within 60 days

That was the biggest piece of news to emerge from last night’s monthly meeting of the SHHOA Board of Directors. The board has set itself a deadline of two months — by then (or earlier, as some on the board indicated) it must decide whether to accept or reject T-Mobile’s offer to place a 120-foot cell tower in the greenbelt behind Doe Run Park.

This motion to finish the cell tower business within 60 days came shortly after Vice President David Anderson, who appears to be the strongest cell tower proponent, motioned that the board re-engage negotiations with T-Mobile in order to get an exact dollar figure — in essence, a better price than the company’s standing offer, which amounts to $5.55 per household per year for 30 years (see more details on the money here and here). As President Su Nogay has told KUT, T-Mobile’s figure is too small to consider at this time, but the board could be enticed with a better bid.

So, it appears this will hinge on money; the board will go for it if the dollar signs are big enough. As Anderson put it, ”The board is interested in knowing exactly how much money is involved — a real figure.” (On a side note, that raises a question: Isn’t T-Mobile’s original offer a “real figure”? And if it wasn’t “real,” then should the board have bothered to raise this issue until it was dealing with a “real” offer?)

Nogay concurred: “It’s hard to discuss with the community if we don’t have an exact figure.” So, how big is that figure going to have to be? Board Secretary James Long indicated that through a little research the board could easily identify a “maximum” most cell companies would pay for residential-area towers. That might be why he voted against renegoiating with T-Mobile (more on that below), because Shady Hollow already should know the best the cell provider can do.

So, how much? Board member Bob Remlinger suggested it’s going to have to be very big. “We’re going to be asking for the moon if we go ahead,” he said.

Had this motion to renegotiate with T-Mobile failed, it likely would have doomed the cell tower proposal entirely. So, in the most tense moment of the night, with tower opponents nervously looking on, this motion went up for a vote. Four voted against it — Elaine Walaker, James Long, Dennis Kaliher and Sam Harper — and the other six voted in favor. Thus, the cell tower situation goes on. While it’s impossible to say for certain, the vote on that motion might have been a litmus test on where the board splits on the tower issue at present: Had the tower received an up-or-down vote last night, would it have won in similar fashion?

It should be noted that these motions occurred after roughly 45 minutes of “citizen communication” from a group of roughly 50 residents — virtually all opposed to the tower, or to the neighborhood acrimony the situation has created. If you were there at the meeting, please summarize in the comments what you said and why. This will help those who missed the meeting get a better sense for what occurred.

One thing that became clear from this meeting: the need for better communication in this process. Board members insisted there was no behind-the-scenes unanimity in favor of the tower: “This may be news to you folks, but there are multiple opinions here on every facet of the issue,” Anderson said. Perhaps that’s true, but the perception of a board that has already made up its mind has been created through mainly pro-tower communication — in the newsletter and via the June 26 sales pitch by T-Mobile — and also through things said to individual homeowners about voting in retribution against tower opponents.

The Board seemed to recognize that its efforts to inform residents through the monthly newsletter have not been adequate. “They [residents] feel they’re in the dark despite our attempts to communicate,” Anderson said. Some reasons for this: Speaking generally, the HOA has used the newsletter to demonize cell tower opponents rather than articulate the “why” behind this proposal — why is it needed in Shady Hollow? That question hasn’t been fully addressed, and the board seemed to recognize this at the meeting.

Perhaps the most disappointing thing, however, is that there is no opportunity for TWO-WAY communication at these board meetings. Everything happens in one-way messages: Citizens speak during their alloted 5 minutes, but the board cannot reply at that time; then later, the board debates and discusses, but the citizens are not allowed to speak. In a neighborhood where community, commonality and civility should be key, why can’t there be any formal dialogue between our parties? Why no formal space for discussion? Why does everything have to occur via one-way channels — such as answering citizens’ questions via the monthly newsletter only — which work to breed false assumptions and misunderstandings?

So, let’s try to overcome this deficiency with this blog, at least to some degree. Let’s have a honest discussion of the issues involved and come to a common understanding that occurs best through two-way communication.

[Note: This post was written by Seth Lewis. All opinions expressed herein are mine ... although I'm guessing most of my neighbors in the "affected" areas would agree. I welcome your comments.]

Please note: Error in return address label

Folks, if you received our open letter to Shady Hollow in the mail today, be advised: Because of a mistake made by the outside printing company, “SHHOA” appeared in the return address. That made it appear that this letter came from the Shady Hollow Homeowners Association — which, of course, it did not, as the HOA noted on its Web site today.

Again, to repeat: This was an error made by the printing company. The printer was furnished only with an address (which, by the way, was not the address of the HOA office but rather that of an individual resident’s home very close to the office) — but the printers stuck the “SHHOA” on there by their own accord. Who knows why.

We’re going to demand that the printing company rectify this unfortunate mistake at its own expense.

Board to meet tonight; possible vote on tower?

The Shady Hollow Board has its monthly meeting tonight (Aug. 21) at 7 p.m. at the community center. While there’s no official word on whether there will be a vote on the cell tower proposal, it’s certainly a possibility. Please come out to voice your opinion.

KUT: ‘Neighbors clash with HOA over cell tower’

Did you hear it this morning on your drive to work? KUT (90.5 FM), the public radio station in Austin, did a story this morning on the cell tower issue in Shady Hollow. Have a listen!

Latest on the cell tower issue

    

These signs are sprouting up around the neighborhood. Would you like one for your yard? Contact shadyhollowneighbors@gmail.com.

Hello again! As the summer winds to a close, let’s recap where we are with the cell tower issue. Much has happened since June 26, when more than 100 Shady Hollow residents gathered to express their concern about Board’s desire to place a cell tower on our collectively owned HOA property. The posts below will fill you in on the latest. The bottom line is that, while the Shady Hollow Board has yet to vote on this, there’s every reason to believe a vote could come soon — perhaps at the Board’s meeting this Thursday, Aug. 21.

If you’d like to get involved in opposing the cell tower, please contact us at shadyhollowneighbors@gmail.com. And, of course, come to the Board meeting at 7 p.m. Aug. 21 to make your voice heard. Time may be running out!

Cell tower site was designated as ‘parkland’ — not for development

Board minutes show the greenbelt where the cell tower might go up, behind Doe Run Park, was designated as "parkland" in 1996. What happened? (Click to enlarge.)

 

The minutes from Shady Hollow HOA Board meetings in early 1996 make clear that the 13.4 acres of greenbelt behind Doe Run Park were considered a “gem” and designated as “parkland.” See the evidence for yourself by clicking here.

What’s important is that this information challenges the Board’s current claim that the area for the proposed cell tower is a “no-man’s land,” a wasteland of sorts because it used to be a water treatment area. 

Yet, the 1996 minutes indicate that the land was considered practically an extension of Doe Run Park. Again, see for yourself:

shady-hollow-board-minutes-on-doe-run-park-redevelopment-in-1996

An open letter to the neighborhood

Shady Hollow Neighbors:

By now we have all read about and heard from neighbors and HOA board members regarding a proposal to install a 120 foot cell tower on community property just behind the community center.  The issue has sparked passionate debate about whether or not such a structure has a place in our community.  We believe that a 120-foot structure is an eyesore and as such has no place in our community. We have provided citizen communications from neighbors citing published studies validating that such structures result in a negative impact to property values, evidence of increased liability risks associated with the presence of a tower and a petition against the proposed tower signed by over 200 residents.  The only known benefit to our community is the revenue (equal to $5.55 per household per year) which would be generated from the lease of the land. 

 

SHHOA Board Response

Regardless of your opinion, one issue which has disturbed many is the lack of transparency shown by the actions of the board of directors with respect to considering this proposal. We all appreciate the time and effort board members give to our community. However, it is disrespectful and irresponsible for the board to ignore legitimate concerns from the members or prohibit them from attending regularly scheduled board meetings to gather information and participate in our community.  Many of our efforts to engage in a dialogue have been ignored by the board.  From the first communication in the May Shady Hollow Highlights to the T-mobile community forum the board has continually refused to share details with the community about how or when a decision will be made on this matter.  This behavior has fanned the flames of this already controversial issue and begun to divide our community.  

We are absolutely opposed to placement of a cell tower anywhere in our neighborhood and at this point can only hope that the board will listen to the voices of the concerned homeowners on this matter.

 

A note about E911

The need for Enhanced 911 service (E911) was cited in the May Shady Hollow Highlights as well as the T-Mobile presentation. E911 is support for wireless phone users who dial 911, the standard number for requesting help in an emergency. Since wireless users are often mobile, some sort of enhancement is needed to 911 service that allows the location of the user to be known to the call receiver. E911 support is mandated by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission for traditional mobile phone service. T-mobile representatives admitted at the community meeting that a T-Mobile customer’s location (without the tower in our neighborhood) can be determined to within approximately 100 feet. If a tower is added that distance is shortened but such “enhancement” will primarily benefit T-Mobile subscribers.

 

Please consider the following on the matter:

 

• SHHOA Board Meeting minutes from February 20, 1996 (PDF download), reflect that the location of the proposed cell tower was intended to be considered park land. However, the Board now contends this is NOT park land, and therefore not subject to covenant rules and restrictions for such designated areas. 
• The Board Members do not live in close proximity to the proposed cell tower location.  Most live west of Brodie or far enough away that they will not have to view or live next to the unpleasant eyesore.

 

What YOU can do

Please contact your Board Members without delay and express your concerns.  Their names can be found inside your monthly newsletter. The Board appears poised to vote on the cell tower and their vote could take place at the next Board Meeting on August 21^st (it is not known for sure, because the HOA board has refused to adequately communicate with the community on the matter). Please visit www.shadyhollow.wordpress.com for additional details.