A Chicken Wire Perspective

Submitted by Roger Rabbit – A SOA Common Area Resident

I object to those humans who wish to legalize the use of “chicken wire” on the split rail fences in Somersett. Even though it is inexpensive, easy to install, hard to see, and inoffensive to the vast majority of Somersett owners, it is discriminatory to all us desert cottontails (I despise the term “Pesky Rabbits”) by denying us access to nourishing food supplies (i.e., green grass, vegetables, abundant flowers and other lush plants) that were selfishly planted by humans for their enjoyment only. I do not see any provisions for denying such access to mice, birds, squirrels and all sort of insects, so why deny us cute little white tailed furry animals a similar courtesy?

Also, be advised that us desert cottontails are Nevada protected and designated as a small game animal. We can only be hunted during designated hunting seasons, which for this season was October 14, 2017 through February 28th, 2018, so don’t get any ideas about pellet guns or traps if forced to take down your chicken wire.

Any humans out there with me on this?

Momuments and Chicken Wire

Monuments

The following repairs and modifications have been proposed for Somerset’s West Entrance Monument (i.e., the one depicted in the above SU header banner).

  • Permanent removal of the two wing walls and relocation of the attached electrical services. These walls have been the subject of automobile accidents (one fatal) in the past and are considered a visibility safety hazard. The SOA is in receipt of an insurance settlement for the existing damaged wing wall which still needs repair.
  • Permanent removal of the existing column mounted light fixtures (eight total). Apparently these fixtures were improperly mounted and are the source of frequent maintenance.
  • Permanent removal of the existing “Del Webb” and “AT SOMERSETT” illuminated signage from both sides of the upper monument levels. These to be replaced with a new on-ground “Somersett” sign in front of the Monument. Sign to be similar to the one at Somersett’s East Entrance Island.
  • Removal of the existing in-ground landscape lighting and installation of new in-ground up-lighting to illuminate the four monument columns plus the proposed new Somersett sign.
  • Monument landscape/stucco repairs and repainting.

Bids were requested from three contractors, but only one, Avilla Construction, responded. The Avilla bid for $63K was opened at the February 28th BOD Meeting. After some discussion on costs and the basis for the proposed sign changes, the BOD voted to redefine the scope of work to just include demolition of the wing walls and their associated electrical and landscape repairs. Decisions on the proposed signage and lighting modifications were delayed to assess options and community input.

One proposed option (not quoted on) was to eliminate the “Del Webb” signage as well as the “AT” in the “AT SOMERSETT”, replacing the “AT” with the Somersett Leaf logo. In this event the proposed on-ground Somersett sign would not be included.

During the BOD discussion on the basis for the proposed sign changes, no reference was made to the amended Maintenance Easement Agreement (MEA) between the Somersett Owners Association (SOA) and Sierra Canyon (SC). Per the MEA: “SC understands SOA’s agreement to accept responsibility for maintenance of the SW Entrance feature is with the intent to change the signage thereon to reflect it as an entry to the entire Somersett development without mention of any neighborhoods, sub-associations or their developers”.

Chicken Wire

The “Chicken Wire” controversy raised its feathered head in a February 28th BOD Meeting discussion. Board Member Steve Guderian proposed a resolution for temporary suspension on the enforcement of poultry wire use violations, that is, except for egregious circumstances. Mr. Guderian opined that the SOA Aesthetic Guidelines Committee (AGC) has the power to make decisions regarding its use, and that we need to take a closer look at this situation. After much discussion, pro and con, the Board voted, although not unanimously, to approve the resolution.

This raises the question as to what constitutes an egregious violation (i.e., conspicuously bad, flagrant, gross, shocking, outrageous, or whatever)? Assume that it will be up to the SOA Compliance Director, Kenna Foote, and the AGC to decide while its use is adjudicated.