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.