Oakwood receiver disputes OPOA charges regarding covenant issue

By LAUREN ZEUGNERStaff Writer"That's a bunch of baloney. Totally preposterous!," said Ian Rolland, receiver for Oakwood when asked to comment on the Oakwood Property Owners Association's assertions he and Dr. Rex Parent wanted to restrict Oakwood property owners access to the Oakwood beach to a 30-foot space.Rolland explains one of the 2004 covenants the OPOA has with the foundation had to do with access to the lake. Calling the current covenant a bit vague, Rolland explained he and Parent have been negotiating with the OPOA to replace it with a covenant more understandable. Both sides agreed the OPOA should have access to the lake in perpetuity.Rolland and Parent recommended a 30-foot easement across foundation property just north of the hotel. "They (the OPOA board) should tell you they aren't worried a bit about the Parents," Rolland said in a phone interview. "They can swim wherever they want and they can sun themselves on the lawn. What they want is protection from the next buyer. Once they get to the lake they can go wherever they want. The lake is public property."After initially agreeing to the 30-foot easement, the OPOA came back wanting an area 125 feet by 40 feet deep right in front of the hotel as the easement. "An easement that size is extremely costly," Rolland said. "One hundred twenty-five feet is a lot + I told them that request was totally unreasonable and a non-starter. We will not ever agree to that."No one is even going to know about the easement because Rex (Dr. Parent) is allowing them to use the entire lawn. If anyone (in the future) restricted their access, they would still have that easement. For them to imply they are being restricted to a 30-foot area is preposterous."Another concern of the OPOA regards slips in the channels owned and controlled by the foundation. Currently the foundation leases slips to property owners a year at a time "at the bargain basement price of $550. That's half of what they lease a similar slip for at Main Channel Marina," Rolland said.He and the Parents made the offer of allowing the OPOA to manage the slip rental for 10 years. The idea was the OPOA would pay $8,800 or $200 a piece for approximately 43 slips to the Parents and then set rental prices as they see fit. OPOA would keep the funds it raised from leasing the slips.At the end of 10 years one of three options could be exercised: the Parents could decide they wanted the slips back; the arrangement was working well, so the lease would be renewed; or the property owners association could purchase the slips outright. "This is a positive thing for the homeowners. It gives them income for their association," Rolland pointed out.He said if the OPOA doesn't think it can raise $8,800 the lease program can continue as it has with the foundation running the pier program.Rolland went on to explain the Parents want the covenants more clearly defined so both parties know exactly what is being given up. "The Parents have given and given and given and every time they (OPOA) come up with something else to be dissatisfied about this."On Monday Rolland implemented a plan "that does not involve the property owners" to modify the covenants and put other actions in place. He notified OPOA attorneys all vehicles in the park must be off foundation property he controls by Aug. 16 or be towed away Aug. 17. "I don't want to do that," Rolland said, indicating he felt he had no choice.The other action he is taking is he will not renew the lease the property owners have to use the playground. Property owners will not be allowed to use the playground equipment in the park."We don't want to fight with the homeowners. Rex wants to be a good neighbor. He wants to get along with the property owners," Rolland said. He continued saying none of the actions being taken he, or Parent, is very happy with, but the property has to be sold."If they drive him away, there's no one in line," Rolland said. "Rex has been on the lake for a long time. He wants this to be successful. We don't want this to be acrimonious. Even the judge wants this done. There's no reason this (the sale of the property) can't be done quickly."