H.S.V.U. - Dear HOA,

Dear HOA,

Please be on notice that the Board meeting that you held on 1/21/26 was adjourned/canceled in error. The decision to end the meeting for lack of a 35 member quorum only applies to a general membership meeting or special meeting--not a Board meeting. As such, the 5 Director quorum were sufficient to do move forward as planned.

Take notice that any attempt to hold a follow up meeting that requires a membership vote based on this 1/21 meeting WILL BE A BREACH of our By-Laws. The voting results will be un-enforceable. You misapplied the By-Laws and do not have a right to hold any type of membership vote based on a re-scheduled membership meeting---do not try it. Membership meetings with elections have large consequences for the membership and we will not tolerate any procedural errors that could trigger amendments and assessments.

You may conduct Board business during the follow up meeting with a quorum of 5 directors, no need for any membership vote.

We encourage you to read By-Laws carefully, do not rely on FSR's manager to interpret them for you. In future, copy/paste By-Laws into ChatGPT and ask the AI to double check before taking any advice from FSR. Or bring an attorney to the meetings.

Yours Truly,

Homeowner #0001

Dear HOA,

Please take notice:

You do not have the right to approve or deny construction plans in this development. These Architectural Rights had been the personal rights of the developer, Vincent Barth's companies until the year 2003. He began looking for a successor in 1991 and gave up completely in 2003. There are 2 letters he wrote to explain what happened.

In addition to his waiver/abandonment of his personal right to review construction, the Deed Restrictions clearly state in Clause 15 that this Architectural Review was for the benefit of the Seller's (Barth) remaining lands for sale. Since these empty lots have long since sold out, the developer's rights have have expired by their own terms. Additionally, the roads are all public now, so under clause 16 the developer has no further obligation to this planned community.

To conclude, the Township zoning office has total discretion over construction approvals. Any attempt to enforce your erroneous Rules/Policies, to issue fines, to resurrect extinguished developer's rights, or to invent new covenants will be foolish and grounds for a lawsuit.

Sincerely,

Homeowner #0002

RE: NOTICE OF FORMAL REJECTION OF UNAUTHORIZED COVENANTS

TO: Board of Directors, Sierra View Association

CC: FirstService Residential (FSR), Association Administrator

DATE: February 2, 2026

RE: Notice of Discrepancy, Chain of Title, and Rejection of Ultra Vires Enforcement

Dear Board of Directors and FirstService Residential:

I am writing to formally notify the Association that I have completed a comprehensive audit of the Chain of Title for my property at [_________________________], tracing the recorded documents back to the original conveyance in the year ___________

Consequently, I am formally rejecting any attempt by the Association or FirstService Residential to enforce the "representative sample" or "manufactured" versions of the Declaration (including the 2016-2024 era "Schedule A-Deed Restrictions") currently utilized by the Association office. This rejection is based on the following three legal grounds:

1. Superiority of the Recorded Original Deed

My property is governed exclusively by the restrictive covenants recorded in my Deed. Any "representative sample" or "retyped" version provided by the Association that contains typos, omissions, modified setbacks, or unauthorized additions (such as arbitrary size limits on garages/sheds) is Ultra Vires and legally non-binding. Under Pennsylvania law, a restrictive covenant must be in the direct Chain of Title to be enforceable; a "sample" manufactured by a Board of Directors does not supersede a recorded deed.

2. Judicial Admission of Uncertainty

The Association has distributed written correspondence in closing paperwork (resale certifiication) stating that it is “not certain of the covenants pertaining to [my] lot” and admitting that the documents provided are merely a “representative sample.” * Under the Doctrine of Strict Construction, Pennsylvania courts hold that any ambiguity or uncertainty in a restrictive covenant must be resolved in favor of the free use of land and against the Association.

By admitting uncertainty, the Association has effectively waived its ability to meet the burden of proof required for enforcement.

3. Lack of Architectural Authority (Caselaw Precedent)

Per the findings in Utnick v. Sierra View, the Association has failed to demonstrate a valid Assignment of Declarant Rights required to regulate the architectural design, size, or material of structures (such as garages) where the original Deed is silent. My Deed explicitly permits a "_____________." Any attempt to restrict the dimensions or materials of said garage via "Rules" or "Bylaws" is an unauthorized modification of my property rights and an ultra vires creation of new covenants without a proper 2/3 majority membership vote to amend covenants.

FORMAL DIRECTIVE

I will be proceeding with the construction of my ________________ in accordance with the actual 1970's Recorded Deed and Chestnuthill/Tunkhannock Township Zoning Ordinances.

The Association and FirstService Residential are hereby directed to:

Cease and Desist any enforcement actions based on unauthorized "sample" documents.
Update Association Records to reflect the actual 1970's covenants for my lot to avoid further bad-faith harassment.
Acknowledge that my property rights are not subject to the fabrications, typos, and omissions contained in the Association's current copy of "Deed Restrictions".

Any attempt to levy fines or place a lien on my property based on these unauthorized documents will be viewed as a tortious interference with property rights and a breach of the Board’s fiduciary duty, for which I will seek all available legal and equitable remedies.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

[Your Lot Number]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tactical Advice for Delivery

Evidence is Key: Attach a copy of the Clause #1 and the Setback page from your 1977 Deed to this letter. This shows them you have the "Real Law" in your hand.
Send it Certified: Use Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. This ensures FSR cannot claim they "never saw it."
The "Paper Shield": Keep the return receipt. If they try to fine you in the future, your first piece of evidence in court is this letter, proving you warned them of their lack of authority and they proceeded in bad faith anyway.
This is AI generated content: always consult an attorney to verify legal strategy

Homeowner #0003