Questions Unanswered - Opinion
​
Who was responsible for distributing the parking violation notices on or about 20 May 22?
A number of directors were unaware that these violation notices were going to be distributed. As the notices were in violation of the policy approved at that time, it was not clear if it was a Board decision to distribute the violation notices or one of a committee who may not have been properly informed. Furthermore, it is not clear if general approval was given or if each instance was considered individually. At least two notices were issued to residents who had no cars parked on the street.
Why was the board not fully aware of this activity?
As mentioned, a number of directors didn't know that these notices were going to be placed on people's doors.
Is it the board’s position that they have authority to regulate non-resident parking on a public street?
As homeowners, we agreed to the Deed of Restrictions and, thus, that we would not park cars on the street overnight. It is a public street, however, and the Deed of Restrictions does not apply to non-residents. Homeowners should not have to ask the Board's permission to have overnight guests when there is no room in the driveway.
Has the Overnight On-Street Parking Policy that was approved on 14 Dec 21 been rescinded, replaced, or incorporated into the DoR by vote?
In December 2021, the Board passed an Overnight On-Street Parking Enforcement Policy. The policy was an attempt to clearly communicate the scope of the restriction, meet the intent of the restriction and communicate the method of enforcement. It also allowed the Board to change the policy by a simple majority board vote should residents wish to address the restriction differently. Click to see a copy of the policy. The violation notices were not issued in accordance with the approved enforcement policy.
If the board has decided to enforce the DoR strictly as written, why is the board only enforcing three of them?
The "enforcement policy" that the Board replaced the aforementioned policy with says that it will begin enforcing the DoR by focusing on three restrictions in particular. If the Board feels that the DoR requires no clarification to meet intent without undue burden to residents as written then why is it enforcing only three? At present, there are multiple directors who are in violation of the current DoR as written. Maybe that's what's driving this second, unorganized attempt at the DoR change. Maybe that's why only those three policies are being enforced. Still waiting on an answer.
From where does the board derive its authority to provide exceptions or variances from deed restrictions on an individual basis?
I believe that there are times when a variance to a restriction should be considered. This action must be managed strictly, however, to ensure fair application. The past Board, with a number of current members at the helm, did not grant variances equitably. Without clear policies and procedures, there should be no expectation that the Board can or will be successful at these things.
Has the board developed procedures to ensure that Saddle Club Homeowners no longer receive violation notices for non-residents that decide to park in front of their house unknowingly, as was the case in at least one instance recently?
The Board has no procedure for verifying that a vehicle on the street belongs to a homeowner. If a car is parked in front of a house but belongs to a resident across the street, for instance, how will the Board know not to send a notice to the first resident? Will the Board put the onus on the first resident to prove they don't deserve the notice? Does the Board expect us to report on our own neighbors?
Has the board developed procedures to address violation notices issued in error?
How are notices tracked? If the Board intends to issue fines this is very important since non-payment can result in a lien. If a violation notice is issued in error, what procedure is in place to ensure that the innocent resident is not improperly burdened by a fine, lien or other issue?
The handful of people that I’ve spoken with did not receive the January Safety Gram. Was the January Safety Gram distributed to the community?
In January of this year, the S&S Committee forwarded a Safety Gram to the Communication Committee for distribution. There is no evidence, at this point, that the document was emailed to the community. The Communication Committee asked about sending it out via Facebook but that was in addition to the email distribution. The Safety Gram included a copy of the new Overnight On-Street Enforcement Policy. Click to view the Safety Gram.
Why was I removed from the Chair position on the S&S committee with no cause and no notice?
During a closed Board meeting I was removed from the Safety and Security (S&S) Committee. From its inception in 2019, I had been not only the chairman but the only member. In fact, I created the committee at the request of the Board president to address ongoing security issues in the neighborhood. I created the associated website at my own expense to promote safety and security. COVID's impact on the direction we were moving was significant but I never got any negative feedback or input on the program. Without any notice whatsoever, I was removed from the committee. To this date, I have received no communication as to why.
Why have I been denied access to security camera footage?
This was my first indication that something was awry. I attempted to log on to the cameras to check their status and found that I no longer had permissions. This was right after granting Edye Dabney access with admin rights. Once again, no notice or reason was given. I believe this was the second step in having the cameras removed altogether. The first step being my removal from the committee.
By removing my access to the security cameras, the board has broken an established chain of communication to quickly address security issues and, it seems, before establishing and communicating a new procedure. Why did the board feel the need to do this so quickly and, again, without communicating with me?
On 05 July, I contacted the only S&S committee member who was available at the time to let them know about suspicious activity that had occurred around 0530 that morning. That committee chair refused to answer my questions or provide direction. In short order, a second board member joined the first in attacking my efforts and in making baseless accusations against me. Indeed, no procedures for residents with issues to contact anyone with camera access was ever developed. I believe that it was deemed unnecessary by the Board since it was their intent to have the cameras removed. I would not have guessed, however, that they were going to ask Flock to remove them months before the contract was up. Click for more information on the removal of the Flock cameras.
​​
​​