NEWLY UPDATED
UPDATE II COMING SOON
The Lakeside Pool (LSP) Committee had a meeting with the pool neighborhoods this past Saturday. The purpose of the meeting was for the LSP Committee to explain their published decision ( previous, via email) to the Residents that they unanimously decided to demo the pool area, and how this demo would proceed. When the meeting commenced, the LSP Committee vaguely recanted the published email, and stated that discussions on the demo would continue with the Residents, and agreed that any demo would only occur if a replacement pool area was agreed upon before the demo.
Firstly, we are all appreciative of the volunteer work of the LSP Committee, especially for the county information with regard to the Bath House. The county building requirements for a repair may be onerous and a demo and a rebuild could be the choice. That still needs more investigation with a licensed professional builder. Remember, we have laymen on the LSP Committee; they have their opinions, but with the enormity of the project here, we need licensed professionals to advise us. Remember, again, we do have a licensed engineering report that does not call for a demo of the pool area, with possible repair choices.
There is no mistake that there is an undertone from the LSP Committee that they’re not repair pool advocates. I actually know one member who told me that the member was not a pool person and would not enter an HOA pool, which can be understandable for some folks. However, I’d like to see a LSP Committee with pool advocates too, which would create a balance of all opinions before any decisions are made. I was previously on the new LSP Committee, and a pool advocate, but was removed from the Committee for fabricated information and replaced with a pool demo advocate. Further, some of the LSD Pool Committee arguments for a demo were debunked by the Residents in presence, engineers, BTW.
On another note, it was a nice gesture and effort for one of the LSP Committee members to secure metal poles to buttress the decayed wooden poles that are holding up the structure of the canvas overhang at the bath house, as we were told at the meeting. However, I do not believe the member is licensed for such work. If these poles fail and someone is around, or they fail and cause damage, then the liability is with the HOA for permitting a non-licensed repair, as would not be the case where a licensed installer would have the liability. Just saying.
Back to laymen volunteers, both the two LSD Pool Committee chairpersons justified the demo of the pool with unfounded and unreasonable reasons. One said that a pool’s lifespan is 40 years, rather a broad statement with no evidence. Our pool is a classic designed commercial resort pool. Its presentation is unique and timeless, like the German architecture of the original pool neighborhoods, i.e. Blue Heron and Egret Trace. It’s a pool worth preserving, which it has been over these 30 plus years. A pools longevity is a product of its materials, construction, and maintenance. As I have said many times over, the pools presentation has not change since I first used it in 1995. It could be considered an architectural crime to destroy this visibly classic one of kind pool area, which is unique, and not an out of the box pool. This pool area embellishes and is a landmark for Aquarina; it’s part of its heritage. The proposed out of the box pool would give us less than what we have now. Let’s reasonably repair the pool area, and keep it going.
The other member said that the inch to one plus inch settling of the gutter, and the minimal settling of a few pavers along the curbing was justification for a demo, even not knowing when the settling occurred, and further answered that if it was the member’s pool that the member would have it demoed. Really? With such a huge consequence of demoing the pool, you would not exhaust other possibilities, such to monitoring the repaired pavers to see if they continued settling? A 30 plus year old pool, will have some settling, especially with pavers. The pavers could have settled to where they exist now years and years ago. Let’s repair them and make a determination, and keep an eye on any further settling of the gutter. A statement by the member like he made is all you need to know to see the bias, and the unreasonableness.
We need licensed professionals to speak to the Residents concerning the pool area, and not biased laymen LSP Committee members telling us what they believe to do with the pool area, with information they found or were told. We shouldn’t have laymen being “middlemen” apprising us. We should have the sourced licensed professionals apprise us. Certainly the 100’s of thousands of dollars expense that could arise with a demo demands direct professional advice.
LEGAL CONCERNS
Another matter may be the legal issues that could surface with, which appears, as the evolving “taking’ of the pool area. Though the pool area was “gifted” to the ACSA, it is a limited common area for the three pool neighborhoods, which means the neighborhoods are responsible for the maintenance of the pool area. Further, per the Aquarina documents, the three neighborhoods were given and have “exclusive” use of the pool area. This laid out written promise for the pool area has been in place for nearly 30 years.
This exclusive use can be considered a pool neighborhood equity interest in the pool area. The neighborhood Residents paid for this equity interest when they purchased their units. The neighborhoods maintained the pool and paid the costs for the pool during the 30 years. The ACSA had no costs. It provided clerical services for pool area budgets and maintenance fees.
Though there are some issues now with the maintenance of the pool, let’s not forget the past 30 years of stewardship that the pool neighborhoods gave the pool area, with no incident of injury or harm. The result of that stewardship is the still wonderful presentation of this pool area today, not withstand the bath house, which can be remedied. Because of this neighborhoods’ 30 year history, it deserves to drive where the pool area’s future shall head. Since the neighborhoods maintain the pool, pay the costs of the pool, and have the exclusive use of the pool, it could be argued that the ACSA is a partner in the pool area, and not the exclusive decision maker with the pool area. I’m sure a judge would see this partnership situation with the evidential history and evidence of maintenance over these past 30 years.
CONCLUSION
I believe that after the recent community meeting, a consensus emerged from the Residents that the pool demo argument is bogus with no real evidentiary data for a leapfrogging demolition, before a measured approach of selective paver repair is completed coupled with a monitoring of the repaired pavers, and the gutter for any significant measurement change. This means no tearing up of all the pavers, but selective repair where they have settled. This approach could occur with minimal time and effort to have the pool be functional and usable again.
Decisions would next to be made with the bath house. The bath house demo could be considered since it would be the quickest way to neutralize that area, and permit the pool to be safely used. It would need to be a measured and paced demolition to preserve the pool equipment and the near pool area; basically disassembled. Time could then be utilized to determine the direction for a new bath house. The bathroom requirement, if any, needs to be researched with the county codes. I do believe, with HOA pools, the bathroom requirements are less stringent, e.g. those neighborhoods with pool access can be up to 200 feet from the pool’s water’s edge, and no on site bathroom requirements are required. However, this needs to be confirmed. Maybe portal-potties could work instead. However again, a bath house repair should still be reviewed professionally before a final decision is made.
I see this above method a positive step to address the bath house and pool, and activate the pool again for the pool neighborhood Residents, In addition, it shows an active solution process to make the pool area usable again in a prompt manner, and the “uncertainty” of the pool area eliminated, during this measured process for eventual resolution.