February BOD Meeting Post Comment

Somersett United
Somersett United

It is this website’s practice not to respond to comments submitted by readers, as all comments are considered sacrosanct regardless of opinions, pro or con, on posted articles. However, Ms. Slattery’s comment on our “February BOD Meeting” post starts out by suggesting this website should be disbanded for sending out false information.

SU rejects the premise that there is false information contained in the “February BOD Meeting” article.  In this post, Items 1 thru 6 simply capture what transpired with regard to BOD Meeting Agenda items.  The only false information Ms. Slattery offered up on these items was that the TCTC pool was NOT open from 6AM to 4PM as reported.  An obvious oversight by Ms. Slattery in that the post clearly stated the “Lap Pool” was open these hours, which is indeed the case.

It appears that Ms. Slattery is most concerned about the negativity directed toward the SOA under Item 7 “Homeowner Comments” regarding the SOA’s non-compliance letter sent to numerous Sierra Canyon owners. The letter speaks for itself with the opening statement “The Somersett Board of Directors is notifying you of non-compliance issues regarding your front yard landscaping. As installed, the front yard landscaping on your home violates the PUD, CC&R’s, and Aesthetic Guidelines of the Community by not meeting the minimum planting requirements as stated on the approved typical landscape plans” (Note: Total letter content is contained in previous SU post entitled “First the Fence now the Plant Police”). Receipt of this letter apparently upset many Sierra Canyon owners as observed by their presence and voiced comments at the February Board meeting.  The SU post only reported on and did not falsely characterize these homeowner comments.  If so desired, an audio CD of the February Board Meeting is available to any homeowner requesting it, although not always the best quality in capturing audience comments.

In her comment, Ms. Slattery summarized events leading up to issuance of the non-compliance letters.  This chronology is indeed informative and should be read by the affected Sierra Canyon owners.  Perhaps if this background had been more deeply communicated to all, some of the negativity toward the SOA could have been alleviated.