This page is for comments on issues related to Forest Cove. The opinions stated on this page are interpretations of issues, and have not been authorized by the FCPOA, FCMUD, City of Houston or anyone else. If you would like to comment on any of these or any other issue, please email your comments. All pertinent comments will be posted on this page. Also, contact your representatives at the State, County, and City level as well as the FCPOA, and tell them your opinion.

Several water wells have recently been drilled for irrigation on Forest Cove properties, in violation of deed restrictions. (see articles in Kingwood Observer & Sun) Water wells are prohibited in all sections (see deed restrictions) except for Section Three. The reason that water wells were prohibited at the time, was to require property owners to connect to the Municipal Utility District, and assure sufficient participation to fund the new M.U.D. Since this is no longer necessary, and the City, the County and the State do not prohibit water wells for irrigation (although permits are required), and water costs have skyrocketed since the City of Houston annexed Forest Cove, many property owners have installed wells to provide water to water their lawns and gardens.

There was a very large turnout at the March 1999 FCPOA meeting to discuss this issue(see Minutes). Most of the meeting was devoted to it. Attorney John Grayson spoke on behalf of the water well owners. He warned of serious legal costs if the FCPOA attempts to take action against property owners with water wells. He also advised against pitting neighbor against neighbor on this issue. He outlined several possible alternatives available to the FCPOA board; 1) take legal action against those with wells, 2) grant a waiver of the deed restrictions for water wells for specific property owners, and 3) do nothing and allow the well prohibition to become legally unenforceable. Judge Don Jackson, also a Forest Cove Resident and who has considerable experience in deed restriction legal cases, also discouraged the board from taking legal action. Rick Butler, the FCPOA attorney from Butler & Hawley indicated that he does not recommend allowing the deed restriction to be violated, nor issuing a statement allowing water wells. He said that the deed restrictions are clear and the issue is unambiguous, and that the restrictions cannot be changed by action of the board, but require a majority vote of all of the sections in Forest Cove. Other property owners made compelling arguments in favor of allowing water wells, while board members and others indicated their concern for blatant violations of deed restrictions.

Many people think that the deed restrictions (which are currently undergoing editing for amendments, and consolidation) should be changed to allow water wells for irrigation. Some people think this will be a good incentive to complete the revision and consolidation of the deed restrictions. Others are concerned that this issue will be used to railroad the new changes through the approval process, overlooking other issues that are of equal importance. Some people are encouraging the amendment of individual deed restrictions immediately to allow water wells. Changing deed restrictions requires the notarized signature of a majority of the property owners in the section.

Some FCPOA board members are concerned about the possibility of subsidence and foundation problems if too many water wells are operated simultaneously.

There is also an issue over what to do if a FCPOA board member has a water well on his property in violation of the deed restrictions. The FCPOA attorney has recommended that "if the board member either chooses to challenge the enforceability of a restriction or simply refuses to comply with a restriction, we consider it appropriate for that director to voluntarily resign from the board."

Since FCPOA board members feel they have a responsibility to enforce the deed restrictions as written, but most do not want to prohibit property owners from maintaining their property at a reasonable cost, they are anxious to resolve this issue both legally and amicably.

The City of Houston appears to be poised to take title to the properties that were bought out by the Harris County Flood Control District (with funding from FEMA). The CoH has announced a new park plan that includes "Linear Parks" along the San Jacinto River in Forest Cove (see Kingwood Observer & Sun article, March 24, 1999).

The City of Houston has a long range park plan that involves use of a considerable amount of property in Forest Cove. This use of Forest Cove property will significantly change the land use.

It would be a major mistake for the people of Forest Cove to allow the City of Houston to gain control of this property. The deed restrictions specify residential use of these lots. Changing them to "parks" controlled by the bureaucrats in downtown Houston will not be in the best interest of Forest Cove residents. The CoH may claim that they have our interests in mind, but they have already shown that their real concern is for our money, our water, and now control of our land.

We should make every effort to maintain control of this property, and specification of its use.

from the January 1999 FCPOA meeting:

"- City of Houston violation notice about repairs to the fence on Burning Tree.... bids have been requested."

from the February 1999 FCPOA meeting:

"Replacement and repairs for the fence on Burning Tree Lane were discussed. Residence from Hamblen Road Estates (HRE) discussed problems of access to their subdivision whenever flooding by the San Jacinto River closes Hamblen Road. The board recognizes HRE's need for access to Burning Tree Lane or other parts of Forest Cove during flooding periods. Limited access to Burning Tree Lane could be granted and implemented whenever repairs are made to FCPOA's fence on Burning Tree Lane. Ms. Sandra Burleson (281)-358-5810 will act as a coordinator for HRE, when a location for the limited access is agreed upon by residence of HRE. Details for the location and costs will be by mutual agreement."

from the March 1999 FCPOA meeting:

editors note 3/99:

It has been reported that the wooden fence on the west side of Burning Tree was installed by Howard Edmunds (who was the developer for Forest Cove) and the group of real estate investors who were building the Hamblen Road Estates development. This was to appease Forest Cove property owners on Burning Tree who were concerned that since the new development's deed restrictions were different than Forest Coves, and since FCPOA could not control or enforce restrictions in the new subdivision, property values could be adversely affected by the new development. There could also be increased traffic congestion if the new subdivision added driveways onto Burning Tree. It would be particularly disadvantageous to Forest Cove if the back yards of Hamblen Road Estates houses faced the same road as the front of Forest Cove houses. So apparently, the Hamblen Road Estates developers deeded a one foot wide strip of land separating the two subdivisions, in order to limit Hamblen Road Estates access to Burning Tree, and provide space for a fence to separate the two subdivisions. There is now some controversy over who owns the fence, and who is responsible for its maintenance. The City of Houston has issued a citation requiring the FCPOA to replace the fence. It is not clear that it needs to be replaced; maybe it can be repaired. If Forest Cove Burning Tree residents are concerned about the possibility of Hamblen Road Estates residents having direct access to Burning Tree, they should contact the FCPOA with their concerns.

Excerpts from e-mail from Kurt Hilarides to FCPOA board members, 1/1/98

3) Deed Restrictions

Also, it has been brought to my attention that the site of the old Forest Cove Baptist Church is restricted to church or residential purposes. "(a) No lot shall be used except for residential purposes except for Lots One (1), Two (2) and Three (3) in Block Seventeen and Lots One (1) and Two (2) in Block Thirty-Two (32), which may be used for either church or residential purposes." see - http://forestcove.vonl.com/FCDeedRestrictSec6.html

Although the school that is currently operating there is affiliated with a church, it is not a church. The deed restrictions do not specify school purposes, and there is a significant difference in the activities of the two. This is in actuality a private school, not a church. The deed restrictions do not sanction "any purpose" that a church might use the site for. The church would not be allowed to open a retail site or factory there. It should not be allowed to open a private school. This is a violation of deed restrictions, and needs to be addressed by the board. The traffic generated by the school is a real problem on Hamblen Road, and most if not all comes from outside of Forest Cove.

The deed restrictions are intended to limit the use of property, in order to stop use that will adversely affect residents of the subdivision. Who uses the property is not the issue. It is how the property is used that matters. The deed restrictions do not discriminate on the basis of religion or sex or age or race. This property is being used as a school, which is not specified as a valid use of the property. This use causes more traffic than a commercial strip center. There are over 300 cars travelling to and from the school twice a day. This use adversely affects residents in the area of the school. Traffick throughout Forest cove is significantly increased. This use of the property should be prohibited.

from the February 1999 FCPOA meeting:

Mr. Gerald Brousard, representing the Northeast Christian Academy (NCA), addressed the board and owners on their planned purchase of the facilities on Hamblen Road from the Forest Cove Baptist Church. The NCA has operated a private school at the Hamblen Road facility for several years. The school has a present enrollment of 250 students with a maximum of 322 at this facility. Contrary to published reports, Mr. Brousard stated that there are no plans to have athletic facilities at this location, but the NCA is looking for another property for future expansion. There were no commitments on the future of the Hamblen Road facility beyond the present proposed purchase agreement. Residents along Hamblen Road expressed concern with the daily traffic congestion, and further congestion as the enrollment increases.

President Flake raised the question that ownership of the property by a private school may not be in compliance with the deed restrictions. (see deed restrictions for section six which refer to the property used by the school -ed.) Mr. Brousard stated that NCA desired to be in compliance with the deed restrictions of Forest Cove. The attorney for NCA, Eric Brown, will be in contact with the attorney for FCPOA, Rick Butler, to determine the status and compliance with the deed restriction concerning the proposed sale of the facilities. The closing date for the property transaction has been tentatively scheduled for April 1, 1999.

A Representative of Forest Cove Baptist Church (FCBC), Mr. Billy Bird, addressed the board and owners on the proposed sale of the church property to NCA. The church presently owns the property on which the NCA operates, and the Church also operates a mission from the facility. The Church is planning to relocate the mission within an unspecified amount of time. After the sale of the property and the relocation of the mission, there would be no activity of the FCBC at the Hamblen Road site.

It has been suggested that traffic congestion in Forest Cove could be reduced by opening up the East end of Hamblen Road to Woodland Hills in Kingwood. This suggestion was met with voracious opposition by residents of Hamblen Road, who believe that it would turn Hamblen into a major thoroughfare like Kingwood Drive, with a very large volume of traffic going between Kingwood and Hwy-59. The City of Houston already has the Hamblen easement plotted twenty feet wider than it currently exists, which would take ten feet of each Hamblen property by eminent domain. The City of Houston has indicated that this project is not on the five year plan, but that if Hamblen and Woodland Hills access to property is requested by a developer, the City would probably provide it.

This is clearly a case where some of the community might be convenienced at the significant expense of other residents. The effect on the whole subdivision would be generally negative. We should all oppose this idea which would cause a significant increase in traffic and crime.

The City of Houston forcibly annexed Forest Cove in December of 1996. Although there are still court challenges to the annexation, the City of Houston currently enforces all city ordinances in Forest Cove.

Residents of Forest Cove were not given the right to vote on the annexation. The annexation was instituted without the consent of those that are now governed by the City of Houston, and against the express wishes of a significant number of local residents.

A City wide election was held in the spring of 1997, after the City began taxing the residents of Forest Cove. But due to the City's failure to comply with Federal Elections Law requirements in a timely manner, Forest Cove residents were not allowed to vote in the City elections.

Forest Cove was previously protected by the Kingwood / Forest Cove Volunteer Fire department and EMS. Although the City promised (and is required by the state annexation laws) to provide services equal to those in place before the annexation, the Forest Cove fire station was closed, and there have been many examples of reduced fire and ambulance services (including purported deaths due to slow service) since the annexation. Emergency ambulance service to the hospital was previously paid by voluntary donations. Now there is a fee ($350??) for ambulance service by the city.

Although a proposed state law to allow Forest Cove residents to vote on disannexation passed the Senate and House committees, passed in the full Senate, and was sponsored by over 60% or the members of the House, the bill died in the calendars committee. Apparently, the bill was killed due to political influence by the City of Houston, which used tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer's money to lobby against the bill.

Court challenges to the annexation have been met by jurisdictional and procedural issues, and have been unsuccessful at providing the people of Forest Cove with the right to self determination on this issue.

Forest Cove is located in a gerrymandered Houston City Council District E that is represented by Councilman Rob Todd. District E also includes Clear Lake City, which is South of Houston and also was forcibly annexed by the City of Houston (in the 1980's). A thin line of property, extending through the Houston Ship Channel, is used to connect Kingwood and Forest Cove to Clear Lake City in order to justify this gerrymandered district. The populations of these two areas are predominately white and upper middle class.

The CoH also stopped payment on a $155,000 donation to the FCPOA from the Forest Cove Municipal Utility district, effectively eliminating significant capital improvements to the community.

The City of Houston Public Works Department surveyed Forest Cove, and determined that 312 additional streetlights are necessary by city standards. They informed the Property owners at the June 1999 meeting that they would install all of these lights at City expense, although they would not say when this would be accomplished. The FCPOA has been lobbying residents to add streetlights for many years, but has not been successful due to the high cost of streetlight installation. Now the City will install any lights that the FCPOA designates for a fee equal to the first year's electric cost (CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 40, ARTICLE ,Sec. 40-3). This amount, approximately $182 per light, is significantly less than the actual installation cost. Prior to learning that the city would (eventually) pay for all of the lights, the FCPOA has voted to appropriate $32,396 of property owner's money to install 178 lights.

The FCPOA apparently does not mind paying the City for something that they will eventually do for at no direct cost to the property owners. Some residents believe that there are better uses for property owner's funds.

Fortunately, he FCPOA has asked that anyone who does not want a light in front of their house should notify them, so that unwanted lights can be removed from the list. This does not guarantee that the light will not be installed, but the FCPOA will not request it from the COH. It appears that the COH has already started installing lights on all of the existing telephone poles on streets in Forest Cove.

Unfortunately, nothing is free in this world. The full cost to install the lights did not go down (it probably went up) when the city annexed Forest Cove. Someone will pay for the lights, and I don't think that the COH annexed us so they could give us things for free. When the full cost of installing the lights was considered, the people of Forest Cove could not be convinced that it was worth that much money, and they preferred not to have the lights. Now that we believe the false premise that these lights are somehow cheaper, we can justify installing them. Big mistake. Eventually we will grow up and find out that Santa Claus is us.

The Forest Cove Municipal Utility District wrote a check to the Forest Cove Property owners Association for capital improvements prior to the annexation. The FCPOA 1998 Annual Report states that "The $155,000 check written to F.C.O.P.A. by M.U.D. prior to annexation did not clear. The City of Houston stopped payment on this check. All the projects we wanted to complete with this money have been delayed."

This confiscation of property owner's funds appears to be another case of City of Houston's attitude that "might makes right". There is currently little hope that these funds will be recovered. This is not the fault of the FCPOA, or the FCMUD. They have both made significant efforts to recover this money. (Although some of the board members seem to think that we don't really have a right to the money since the COH stopped payment on the check)

The issue was addressed at the January 1999 FCPOA meeting.

The 1999 annual report indicates that the FCPOA board is still pursueing payment of these funds. However, no substantive action has been taken as of this report.

The speed humps in Forest Cove are the result of residents filing an application to the City of Houston. The FCPOA does not authorize or approve the speed humps. The FCPOA maintains that they did not instigate the process , and that it is just a COH program that Forest Cove residents have a right to exercise. But it seems that the some of the FCPOA directors have promoted this COH program.

excerpt from Forest Cove Beacon "From The FCPOA President" 2/98

2-98 FromThePres

I'm not sure whether "we applied for some speed bumps" means that the FCPOA applied, or that the Pres. and some friends applied, but it had the same effect. We have speed humps on Walnut, Forest Cove, and Burning Tree, partly due to the actions of the FCPOA, and without any prior community discussion of the issue. It seems that "I guess everybody heard we have applied for some speed bumps" is the boards way of informing property owners, and soliciting input from the community.

As a result of the FCPOA washing their hands of the issue, there is not any community input or interaction concerning the placement of the speed humps except by the residents requesting them and their immediate neighbors.

The result of these speed humps has been a lot of controversy. Some people think that this is the only way to slow down traffic, and are glad to see reduced traffic flow in front of their houses. Others are concerned about the safety hazards of the "speed humps", and worry about slowing down emergency vehicles. Some of us went slow before, and now suffer suspension damage even if we go 20 mph over the "humps". Some people are opposed to the diversion of traffic from a road that was previously a through road to adjacent parallel roads. Those that bought houses on non-through roads now have increased traffic on their road (even though when they bought their property they might have paid more because it was not on a through road). These humps are VERY expensive, and we are all paying for them with our taxes. The street signs warning of the speed humps were exactly the kind of eye-sore that the deed restrictions intended to prohibit ( "No sign of any kind shall be displayed...").

Having controversy that pits neighbors against one another is not a good situation, and should have been addressed by the FCPOA prior to taking action, and should be addressed by them in the future before they initiate projects. This is a situation where the FCPOA should be involved to solve this problem to the best interest of the whole community, not just those who use abusive COH policies to their advantage, at the expense of their neighbors.

Other speed hump references

According to the FCPOA 1998 Annual Report; "The City of Houston has a sidewalk program Forest Cove is looking into. Hamblen Road has been approved. Both sides of Hamblen, from Northshore to Rustic Bridge will have sidewalks. Walkers and Bicycle Riders will be safer."

COH charter, and COH sidewalk ordinance indicates that if City Council decides that we need sidewalks (as the FCPOA seems to have convinced them) then the COH can "compel" property owners to install them according to City specifications, "at the expense of the abutting property owner". There is however, a COH program that uses tax dollars to pay for sidewalks that meet certain specified criteria. The COH had a survey done by Brown & Gay Engineers (281.558.8700, Sean Mardsen, engineer) to determine the need for sidewalks on Hamblen Road. Based upon the amount of pedestrian traffic, particularly at the school in the old Forest Cove Baptist Church, the city has determined that we need a sidewalk on the North side of Hamblen from Forest Cove Dr. to Lisa Lane, and on the South side of Hamblen from Forest Cove Dr. to Northshore. The sidewalks are now in the design stage, with the design work being done by (guess who?) Brown & Gay Engineers, the same company that did the survey to justify the two sidewalks. They will be four foot wide concrete sidewalks, and will be about three feet from the road, on the road side of the ditch.

If the FCPOA thinks we need sidewalks, they should poll the homeowners first. Homeowners who do not want sidewalks on the easements in front of their property should be given significant consideration. And if it is determined that sidewalks are desirable, necessary, and justifiable, then they should move forward with requests to the City. Remember, we did not buy our property here assuming it was an urban community; we expected a forest, not sidewalks and curbs. The City's abuse of state annexation law should not justify local resident's abuse of their neighbors.

The FCPOA asserts that they have informed the property owners of their actions requesting these sidewalks through announcements in the Beacon. I looked through all of my past issues of the Beacon, and I can not find a single reference to sidewalks. The announcement in the annual report, after the fact, is the only reference I could find. No one in the community, except FCPOA insiders, was consulted about participating in another COH program. If this was to be funded by the property owners, I doubt that they could be convinced that the benefits outweigh the costs. If it's "free", then maybe they can convince people. Unfortunately, the cost of the sidewalk does not change because the city says it's free. We all pay for it anyway, and misallocation of our resources resulting from calling it "free" is detrimental to us all.

I watch the pedestrian traffic on Hamblen every day. There are three men and a family who run or walk on Hamblen every day. Most of them do so before or after the "school rush hour", so as to miss the traffic. There are very few kids that don't get rides to the school, which is why we have the traffic problem in the first place. There is a small amount of bike traffic periodically. My kids ride their bikes down Hamblen every day. Having a sidewalk, or more appropriate to the character of Forest Cove, a bike and pedestrian path, would be helpful, and make it safer for all of these people. But it is absolutely ridiculous that there will be sidewalks on both sides of Hamblen; the resources could be used far more effectively in other ways. Other sidewalks, school bus stop shelters, or many other ideas would be more worthwhile than sidewalks on both sides. But this is what we get when we depend upon detached, centralized government to provide for our needs.

9/8/98-

I am conducting a survey of residents that will be affected by this program, and have mailed it to Hamblen Red. residents, and pedestrians I have seen. Please email me with your opinion on this subject.

Additional Sidewalk Information

Many lots have been "cleared" in the past few months. It seems that some one thinks that it is an improvement to cut down the valuable undergrowth, including holly, palmetto, and other natural local species; and better to leave piles of dry, dead, fire hazardous debris on the property. This also reduces the natural sound barriers in the community, reduces natural moisture retention, and eliminates wildlife habitat. If property owners are choosing to do this for their own reasons, then that is their right, since it is their property. But if this is due to COH ordinances, and coercion by City government, we should protest vehemently in opposition to taking the forest out of Forest Cove.

It seems that most of the lots that have been cleared have been due to property owners complaining to the COH "Neighborhood Protection Team hotline" for "dangerous buildings, abandoned or junk vehicles, high weeds, rodent control or illegal dumping".

I guess one man's wildflower is another man's weed; and one man's raccoon, possum, field mouse, deer, squirrel, armadillo, great horned owl, and pilleated woodpecker is an urban man's rodent and pest. (wkh 8/28/98)

9/1/98

The FCPOA has contracted with an attorney to revise and combine the existing 12 sets of deed restrictions into one consolidated document. This will accomplish several objectives:

Some changes are anticipated, including issues relating to stables, home businesses, and others. When the new restrictions become available, they will be posted on this page.

Consolidation will require a majority vote of the property owners, but a smaller majority than is required to increase the dues. All deed restrictions seem to be consistent on these issues.

"The annual charge for maintenance may be adjusted by the Association from year to year as the needs of the property may, in their judgment, require, but shall in no event be set at a higher amount than hereinabove stated, except by duly recorded petition signed by not less than three-fourths (3/4ths) of the then property owners of FOREST COVE, SECTION ..."

"Covenants .. run with the land and shall be binding on FOREST COVE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY and all parties and persons claiming under it until (see date below), at which time said covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten years each unless by duly recorded instrument signed by a majority of the property owners in said addition it is agreed to change said covenants, conditions and restrictions in whole or in part."

FOREST COVE, SECTION ONE -March 1, 1986
FOREST COVE, SECTION TWO - March 1, 1986
FOREST COVE, SECTION THREE - March 1, 1986
FOREST COVE, SECTION FOUR - March 1, 1987
FOREST COVE, SECTION FIVE - July 1, 1987
FOREST COVE, SECTION SIX - March 1, 1988
FOREST COVE, SECTION SEVEN - April 1, 1988
FOREST COVE COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES, SECTION ONE - May 1, 1988
FOREST COVE COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES, SECTION TWO - May 1, 1989
FOREST COVE COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES, SECTION THREE - May 1, 1988
FOREST COVE COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES, SECTION FOUR - May 1, 1988
FOREST COVE COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES, SECTION FOUR-A -May 1, 1998

If anyone has specific issues concerning the deed restrictions, they should contact the FCPOA and let them know as soon as possible.

6/6/99 here are some comments concerning this issue:

We will soon be receiving the changes to the deed restrictions as proposed by the FCPOA. The current deed restrictions allow for changes to the deed restrictions "…by duly recorded instrument signed by a majority of the property owners in said addition…". But such changes should not be taken lightly. Some changes are needed, while others are probably better left alone.

Deed restrictions are a contractual agreement entered into upon purchase of property in the subdivision; so it is reasonable for people to expect that the terms that they agreed to under this covenant will remain in effect as long as they own the property.

Any change in the deed restrictions should be justified by a significant change in conditions surrounding the subdivision. Some examples of appropriate changes include;
1) removal of water well restrictions that are no longer necessary (since they were originally needed to promote participation in the water and sewer supply system),
2) relaxing of business use restrictions due to changes in economic and technological conditions that allow for unobtrusive use of a residence for business purposes,
3) increases in annual fees due to increases in the cost of operation of the subdivision.
4) Allowing the Architectural Control Committee to grant variances from compliance with the Restrictions relating to the placement of structures.

We should not allow changes to the restrictions that primarily serve the purpose of micro-management of our property by a potentially overzealous FCPOA. Although I'm sure the current board would not abuse their power, future board members might not be so restrained, so we should not provide any power that can potentially be abused. Possible examples of changes that should be opposed are:
1) adding limitations on the use of property such as the number or type of horses allowed on lots that allow horses,
2) surrendering additional authority to the FCPOA to determine the appearance property, including landscaping, and property maintenance,
3) granting the FCPOA additional power to levy fines and interest for non-compliance with their aesthetic opinions,
4) authorizing the FCPOA to trespass and do landscaping and/or property maintenance, according to their standards, at a property owner's expense,
5) adding redundant restrictions on burning, etc. that are already prohibited by Federal, State, County or City ordinances,
6) specifying where we keep our garbage containers, and when we can put them out for pickup,
7) changing the rules concerning where we can park cars,
8) adding restrictions concerning antennas (prohibiting some and requiring approval of others,
9) requiring additional approvals by the Architectural Control Committee,
10) granting the FCPOA authority to raise annual fees at their discretion,
11) authorizing the FCPOA to use foreclosure as a means to collect outstanding fines, fees, and interest.

The omission of restrictions is an important characteristic of Forest Cove. This contributes significantly to our property value, since there is a significant market for property that has restricted use, but avoids excessive meddling by the property owners association.

Let's move forward together and make the changes that are justified, and keep the rest of the restrictions as we agreed to when we purchased our property. After all, if we had wanted more restrictions, we could have moved to Kingwood.

6/13/99

The final draft of the revised deed restrictions have been provided for publication on the internet by Jerry Safarik, the current president of the FCPOA. The FCPOA is proposing only one option to property owners. The document consolidates the deed restrictions of the current twelve sections into one document. It also makes the following changes to the current restrictions.

  1. removes the water well prohibition
  2. relaxes business use restrictions
  3. increases the annual fees to $150 per year
  4. allows the Architectural Control Committee to grant variances from compliance with the Restrictions relating to the placement of structures.
  5. limits the number of horses on all lots to two (irrespective of lot size)
  6. requires the property owner to pay all legal expenses for any deed restrictions compliance litigation
  7. prohibits the moving of used residences onto any lot
  8. requires FCPOA approval of all fences
  9. gives the FCPOA sole and final authority to determine what is a violation of the restrictions
  10. adds restrictions on mowing of lots, trimming of trees, flower bed maintenance, maintenance of external improvements, etc.
  11. gives the FCPOA authority to enter your property and mow your lawn, trim your trees, or paint your house, at your expense.
  12. specifies where we can keep our garbage containers, and when we can put them out for pickup
  13. changes the rules concerning where we can park inoperable cars
  14. adds restrictions concerning antennas, prohibiting some and requiring FCPOA approval of all others.
  15. grants the FCPOA authority to raise annual fees at their discretion, providing only token and impossibly arduous redress of irresponsible increases
  16. authorizes the FCPOA to use foreclosure as a means to collect outstanding fines, fees, and interest.
  17. changes the use of the church property to allow the private school to operate there.
  18. attempts to make up for the additional restrictions by grandfathering current violations of the new restrictions.

The FCPOA plans to distribute the revised restrictions at the next regular FCPOA meeting.

If anyone is interested in supporting an alternative version of the revisions, that has been made more like the current restrictions (and less like Kingwood) by eliminating all of the additional restrictions except the first four changes listed above, please email me at igt@vonl.com. I can provide a copy (or email an MSWord file) of the FCPOA proposed version with the deletions stricken.

more to come later (expense that is)

The COH took over our garbage collection, which used to be contracted by individual homeowners. They canceled my contract with a local collections company, who used to pick up my garbage in cans in front of my house twice a week. The result is that it is against the law to put your garbage out in garbage cans. We must now follow COH ordinance, and put garbage in "disposable containers", i.e. garbage bags. These bags are expensive, inhibit the biodegradation of refuse, it's inconvenient to dump garbage cans into bags, and animals (wild and domestic) love to tear up the bags and scatter the garbage. I'm sure that the bags save the garbage handlers time, so the city considers it more efficient. But if one considers the the time that is spent by residents preparing their garbage for collection, the inefficiency is apparent. The time spent is simply transferred from the collectors, to the residents. If you are unhappy with the solid waste disposal, you can call the COH, and they will argue with you if you want, they're all just doing their job (I used to be able to fire my garbage collector if he screwed up). The garbage man wouldn't mind picking up your garbage in a can, except that he gets fined by the COH if he does. The COH has a "garbage police" woman who goes around checking to make sure that no one uses cans.

Apartments and a shopping center are planned for the area between Forest Cove and Kingwood Drive, East of Loop 494 and adjacent to the Kingwood Home Finders. Due to this construction, access will also be provided to this area through Forest Cove on Castle Hill, so that the Fire Department can access the area. In order to quell the concerns of forest Cove residents on Midlothean and Laurel Springs, the developer has agreed to have "911 gates" installed that will will only allow access by the fire department. This has been approved by the CoH.

However, these gates can and have been opened by the CoH without even notifying the property owners of their intention. CoH states that "one reason the decision was made to open the gate was because of a letter submitted by the Fire Chief after making an inspection of the area; that he pointed out that there was a safety issue involved". They also "stated that there was a letter from HUD and there was an administrative proceeding involving this and a number of other gates that had been consolidated ... and he believed ... if they did not take action they would be at risk for a possible finding of discrimination". (see City Council Chamber, City Hall, Tuesday, August 18, 1998) These gates were motivated for the same reason as our gates, to control through traffic, and are being unilaterally opened by the City at a later time. The same arguments will apply when they open the Forest Cove "911" gates in the future. This will provide another route for Kingwood and apartment residents to avoid traffic by cutting through Forest Cove.

Our Council Member Rob Todd stated "...that he supported 911 gates when supported by the community and the concerns Chief Tyra had given were reasonable but would also apply to every 911 gate in town and if the policy was going to be that whenever those considerations were in play that they open 911 gates then perhaps the Administration should open all 911 gates in Houston; and he would once again ask that the gate be closed until the matter could come before Council."

"Council Member Sanchez stated that the issue concerning him was a broader issue, he was not sure Council gave up the authority to the Office of the Mayor to remove the gates and what troubled him more about the Administration was that the will of the people often times was circumvented..."

"Mr. Bibler stated that City Council voted to authorize the gate, but the gate was not placed there based upon a vote from the people in the neighborhood; that the only way a gate or stop sign or stop light or speed limit sign or any other such device could be put up was on the basis of Traffic Engineering issues, whether or not the people wanted their speed limit raised or dropped it could not be done except based on traffic considerations and petitions or items of that nature did not take away the city’s duty or obligation to place their determinations on public safety and traffic engineering."

I don't think we should count on our "911 gates" remaining closed.

The Harris County Flood Control District is abusing it's power of eminent domain to force Forest Cove residents to give up their homes. More on this later.

 

email your comments

 

Back to Homereturn to Forest Cove home page