The Wedgefield Examiner has been provided a copy of the letter from the board. I have retyped it, to make it easier to read.
HERE IT IS:
Mr. (resident's name),
Pursuant to your request for a written response to your numerous complaints regarding Lot 225, allow this letter to serve as the board's answer to your request.
1). Regarding the shed, ARC has found that the shed was not within the boundary of the resident's property after survey was conducted by the resident at resident's expense. Resident has indicated in writing her intent to have shed removed from the property. It should be noted that ARC did not require shed be removed, as no other violation beyond inappropriate placement was noted. Your contention of "eye sore" is subjective, and in ARC's view, shed falls with general guidelines. Your view certainty is not blocked by the shed, so any reference to that relative to you is meaningless. In any event, as resident has decided to get rid of the shed, the point moot.
2). Regarding the uncovered LP tank. Resident moved tank from side to back of building thinking this would suffice. Resident has been advised that is not sufficient, that tank must be screened by lattice, shrubbery, or the like. ARC is following up to see this is accomplished. ARC agrees that LP tank currently is in violation of rules and regulation.
President,
Jacky Walton
COMMENTS - THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER'S
I'll remind you that the response comments are mine. I've followed this board charade for 11 months. Yes, it did take your board 11 months to answer this resident. I thank the resident for standing up for Wedgefield, and requiring action according to our governing documents, all the while being ridiculed from the board table. Most of the resolution happened by accident, or through research, going door to door to neighbors, and the persistence of the resident who registered the complaints on DEC 3, 2015 - rather than by responsible action of this board.
Prior, to the September WPA board meeting, our resident delivered a letter to the board regarding these issues, signed by 10 property owners. Did they received a snarky response like this from the board?
*"Regarding the shed, ARC has found that the shed was not within the boundary of the resident's property after survey was conducted by the resident at resident's expense." Please, our resident walked the property, went to the county offices and got the lot specs, and was told by president Walton that the shed sat within the property boundaries.
*"It should be noted that ARC did not require shed be removed, as no other violation beyond inappropriate placement was noted."
This board is so corrupt, and intimidated, by each other, that they won't stand up, and speak for what they, as individual board members told the resident, when he was being laughed at during board meetings BY Garrison! On July 18th, the resident wrote the following to the board. "On two separate happenstance, informal meetings with Board members DeMarchi, and McMillin, I was ADVISED by DeMarchi that the shed DID NOT meet architectural requirements and by McMillin that the building itself was never permitted." DeMarchi and McMillin appear to talk out of one side of their mouth when Garrison isn't present, and stay silent at the board table when he is - gutless! This whole board has flagrant disregard for our governing documents. By the way, before any of them start their chorus of "they are old, and outdated", I will remind them all of two things. 1) You signed a pledge to uphold them, and govern under them! Your signature obviously carries as little truth as your word! 2) The policy manual guides placement on property of sheds. You, as a board, Garrison in particular, have reviewed, and rewritten the policy manual twice in the last five years, and still - you won't stand behind it! Section 4.02.18 - Storage Sheds, # 5 of the Policy Manual: "Should be placed AS CLOSE to the house as possible" I have been to the location. The complaining resident has taken pictures. This is a relatively good size lot for Wedgefield. There was plenty of room to place the shed much closer to the house. This shed was placed at an extreme far corner - to such a degree that it partially sat on the golf course!
*"Your contention of "eye sore" is subjective, and in ARC's view, shed falls with general guidelines." Everything is "subjective" when it comes to this board, because they blatantly do what they want, even when they have rewritten the rules! The complaining resident stated in writing to the board, "I have since held conversations with residents adjacent to lot 225, and been allowed to TAKE PICTURES. The view, their view, of their asset - the golf course is being blocked by the shed. (PICTURES PROVIDED)." We'll go back to the Policy Manual, Section 4.02.18 - Storage Sheds, # 5: "Should be placed as close to the house as possible to avoid possible BLOCKING of neighbors view and/or creating and EYESORE for the neighbors." How ridiculous is it, when you use their own WORDS, and guidelines, and the board ignores your correspondence for months - didn't even report from the board table that they received the first of 3 letters, then when you question during a board meeting - some board members stay silent and won't speak up as to what they said to you, but they will sit by while the board legal chair laughs at you? IT IS BAD! IT IS WEDGEFIELD'S GOVERNANCE BY THIS BOARD. What is worse, is that residents who chimed in with their concern, often didn't want their name used, appear to be silent, because they don't want your Wedgefield board treating them in public, and obviously in writing - like they treated this resident, and so many more. The fine for this behavior? Wedgefield's decline, and decay!
I appreciate the resident doing the work, and standing up for Wedgefield, when the board gets abusive!
P.S. President Walton, you should be ashamed of this piece of correspondence! It demonstrates just how low you will go. It appears like so many other things that you will put your name on anything. We all have a writing style, and writings can quickly be identified as ours, or not. This appears to be written by someone else on the board.
PSS: Sometimes if you wait for justice, it happens all by itself - divine intervention. The shed was crushed by a large tree during the storm. Please understand that I do not wish harm on the property of any other resident. Due to no action of the board, nature solved the problem.
