The following observation submitted by Joe Bower, Sierra Canyon Homeowner

Over the last few years three board members have suddenly left the SC Board shortly after being elected/appointed to it.

The first stood up from the board table during an open session meeting and in front of owners in attendance verbally announced their resignation to the the other board members and subsequently moved out of the community. The second announced their departure while attending a closed session of the board, however still lives in the community. The third resigned and moved out.

Strange goings on!

SU Note: Emotions appear to be at a high level regarding some Sierra Canyon Association issues.  Whereas it is SU’s policy to publish all comments pro and con, civil dialog is always encouraged in replies to postings or comments by others.


Aesthetic Guidelines Committee Charter

Ms. Slattery’s comment offered up some good reasons for not eliminating the SOA Homeowner position on the Aesthetic Guidelines Committee (AGC). In addition to the elimination of the Homeowner membership, the “Construction Manager” professional position is also being eliminated, perhaps because the SOA Board feels that home construction within Somersett is coming to an end and therefore, this position is no longer necessary. Of the two Board Member positions, one Primary and one Alternate, only the Primary Board Member has a vote. This along with the three professional positions being retained (i.e., Civil Engineer, Architect and Landscape Designer} provides for four votes on any issue. The Alternate Board Member only has a vote in the case of a tie or in the absence of the Primary Board Member.

Why the change? Was this just a decision of the SOA Board or were the other members of the AGC consulted?

Rather than eliminating the Homeowner membership and decreasing the AGC from seven to five members, why not increase homeowner representation? Given that the Civil Engineering position is currently held by Seth Padovan, who is beholden to the SOA Board for income, can he really cast a vote independent of a Board position? Also, what makes one believe that the “professionals” on the AGC (non-Somersett residents) will look beyond the PUD (last recorded back in March 2009) and the current Somersett Aesthetic Guidelines in their enforcement thereof, rather than addressing current homeowner and building realities and approving variances when warranted? Could not homeowners provide a more balanced perspective here?

All points to ponder, homeowners out there who may have strong positions on the makeup of the AGC are encouraged to attend the February 27th BOD Meeting and express them. Being an Agenda item, this may be accomplished at the beginning of the meeting before the discussions and/or approvals by the Board.

February 27th SOA Board Meeting

The Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (BOD) open meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 27th, 2019 at 5:30 PM at The Club at Town Center (TCTC) Sports Court. The Meeting Agenda may be accessed by clicking on the following link:

February 27th BOD Meeting Agenda

Note that Agenda items are sparse with no New Business items to be discussed. However, based on past practice, an updated agenda may be in the offing between now and the Boaed Meeting. Also, the BOD Meeting Packet, which contains details associated with Agenda items was not available at the time of this posting. This posting will be updated if a new Agenda is released and/or the BOD Meeting packet is made available.

Regarding the Old Business items on the Agenda:

  • 6.a  Legal Update – It is not anticipated that any update on the Rockery Wall Lawsuit will be discussed, as no new Court Dockett entries have been posted since the previous update.
  • 6.b  Committee Charters, Proposed Change(s) – The Board approved changes to all SOA Committee Charters (Aesthetic Guidelines, Community Standards, Finance & Budget, Facilities & Communication) at the January BOD Meeting. However, the revised Charters have not yet appeared on the SOA Website. Perhaps some reconsiderations here? Especially with regard with the Aesthetic Guidelines Committee wherein the membership was reduced from seven members (two Board Members, one Civil Engineer, one Landscape Designer, one Architect, one Construction Manager & one SOA Unit Owner) to five members (two Board Members, one Civil Engineer, one Landscape Designer & one Architect). The elimination of a SOA homeowner on the Committee was not without controversy.
  • 6.c  Rockery Wall Update – Speaks for itself, probably with regard to the Gypsy Hill work progress and the Roundabout 2 wall monitoring.

At the urging of the Sierra Canyon Board, the December and January SOA Board Meetings were well attended by Sierra Canyon owners intent on expressing their displeasure with some of the SOA’s policies and practices, good for them as this is what Board meetings should encompass. However, we all know that disenters are more vocal than those who have no axe to grind. Perhaps those who support SOA policies and decisions should also speak up, as any homeowner has the right to speak their piece (three minute limit) on any subject following conclusion of agenda items.