SOA Aesthetic Guidelines Discussion

At the December 17th Board of Director (Board) Meeting, Board member O’Donnell presented proposed changes to the AGC process, which he believes will provide a less costly and more friendly approach to owners submitting projects for approval. He addressed eight different problem areas with proposed solutions as follows : 1) A fast track application process for building projects under $100K and landscape projects under $50K, 2) A requirement to complete review and action on non-fast track applications by the next AGC meeting, 3) Using the CC&R’s as the sole basis for approval or denial of applications, 4) Reliance on neighbors to report non-compliances, 5) Return of deposits to owners whose projects did not pass inspection, but with an approved variance, 6) Reduction of AGC costs by not employing a full complement of paid professionals, 7) Elimination of redundant approvals by the Sierra Canyon ARC and the SOA AGC, and 8) AGC appeals to go directly to the Board.

There was limited discussion by other Board members on the pros and cons of the merits of O’Donnell’s propositions, no actions were taken but tabled for future considerations.

Mr. O’Donnell’s propositions (i.e., Problem and Solution statements) were published as a “Summary of Proposal for Discussion: AGC Updated Guidelines” to the December 17th meeting minutes and is available on the SOA’s website (www.somersett.org) under the SOA Documents/Board Documents/2021 tabs.

At the January 13th Board meeting it was announced that each of the eight propositions would be discussed and voted on separately, which they proceeded to do for item 6) above under BOD Meeting Agenda item 8.d. “Appointments to the AGC”. Action was to eliminate two paid professionals (Architect Mike McGonagle and Civil Engineer Seth Padovan) from the Committee and to appoint a homeowner (Rob Jordan) to it.

The upcoming January 27th Board meeting contains no Agenda item for the other seven propositions, so it is assumed these will all be handled at a later date.

In this regard, SU has reproduced the “Summary of Proposal for Discussion: AGC Updated Guidelines” document (apologies for any errors) along with some embedded SU comments as denoted in italicized red font. This commented on copy is available via the following link:

Summary of Proposal for Discussion AGC Updated Guidelines – SU Comment Copy

Given that the AGC and AG Guidelines are always a hot topic among homeowners, especially those with proposed building additions/modifications or landscape projects, you are encouraged to review the linked document and offer up your own comments.