A group of neighborhood residents contacted an owner of a lot (Habitat for Humanity) located in their neighborhood and expressed their concerns that the future home would not conform to SVCA minimum standards.  Habitat for Humanity (HFH), which had not begun any submissions to the Architectural Control Committee, were being invited to neighborhood meetings where members questioned their plans.  Multiple emails were sent to the Board of Directors, with ccs out to members, Association Counsel and staff, and Habitat for Humanity management, seeking to obtain assurances any home built by this member would have to conform to SVCA home standards.

In the exchange of emails that followed, the voice of this group representing these concerned neighbors was told repeatedly, in successive emails, all homes built in the association must comply with the ACC’s application of its current guidelines, with only limited waivers possible. This is as specified and required by the restrictive covenants. Beyond that, the association is bound by, and will comply with, applicable federal and state housing laws.

Additionally, the voice for these neighbors was told “The ACC must abide by its guidelines, with some limited ability to grant waivers. The board must respect the strict limitations on its authority. Neither the ACC nor the board can, on their own, change the burdens placed on them by the restrictive covenants”.

To be clear, the association has no business discussing who is buying a house, who will live in that house, and interviewing and discussing requirements for that house, outside of the ACC process.  Given that HFH has not submitted, nor has the ACC received, any specific proposal to date, there is nothing for the board or staff to discuss.  The board and staff, by our legally vetted policies and Pprocedures, cannot get between the ACC and a property owner.  This was also consistently reinforced in writing multiple times, and in public, to the voice of this group.

As to Sudden Valley “gifting” any property, much less this property, that has not ever happened, and will not be done.  HFH did own a lot at the top of gate 5 where the association is attempting to prevent more construction due to bad roads and cost savings.  They were offered to swap lots, given a complete list of SVCA lots, and asked to pick one; they did, and we split costs on the property transfer.

The association is doing what it is required to do; to responsibly distance the corporation from a potentially damaging legal situation by refraining from any hint of illegal behavior, including discrimination. No person was “forced” to disengage from any conversation.

This is an unfortunate set of circumstances that is unseemly for a community of many diversities, and the board hopes that calm and patience will prevail.