H.S.V.U. - History

In the Beginning, "Barth" created the HOA and its Planned Community.....

Sort of.

In reality, the land known as "Sections 1 and 2" (Lower and Upper Sierra View) were owned and developed by two separate developers: Eagle Land Co. Inc and Sierra View Corporation.

There is not much info on Eagle Land Co., other than it's formation in 1968, it's approved "Plat Map" of Lower Sierra View (Section 1 Map) from May 1976 that is still on file with the county, and it's dissolution in 1980. Vincient Barth's Sierra View Corporation developed the plans for Upper Sierra View (Section 2) and filed it in September 1976.

Lawrence R. Bailey was the surveyor for both Upper and Lower Sierra View. He ran a surveying office in Stroudsburg until he was into his 80s (he's 94).

So there were 2 developers getting approvals from 2 townships. Eagle then sold its lots to Sierra View Corporation. Both developments got approvals with "Restrictive Covenants" that Vincent Barth later updated and expanded to include membership in his HOA.

The formation of the "SVC" Sierra View Corporation in March 1976 and later the "SVA" Sierra View Association (the HOA) in December 1976 are our primary focus here in the 21st Century.

Mr. Barth was likely the first President and served on its Board, until such time as he sold enough lots to get volunteers to fill vacant seats and let the HOA run itself. His lots took decades to sell out, until around the 1990s or so, and at present there appear to no unsold lots titled to Mr. Barth or his corporation, SVC. There are around 1,250 lots. It is our view, under clause 15 of his Declaration, that his Declarant's Rights ended by their own terms once the last lot sold and he did not name and record a successor (more on that later).

These "Deed Restrictions" aka "the Declaration" aka "Schedule A" are the terms that "run with the land", no matter who sold it to you---you are to accept the terms of that Declaration. That is the deal with the "Declarant" Mr. Barth himself. The reason for this is that back in the 1970s, there were no detailed Township ordinances and/or enforcement, so these private contracts were the only way to make the homes look like a suburban neighborhood. So anyone who bought a building lot, bought it with "strings attached". No home under 700 sq ft, no home taller than 2.5 stories and so forth. Here is an actual copy of Barth's Declaration: (keep reading below)

Take action: DONATE to the Legal Fund

These are the 16 "thou shalt nots". #13 gives HOA the right to exist and makes membership mandatory! From this one document, power flows to the HOA and its members, good standing or not, to write By-Laws, Rules/Regs, Policies and Procedures. It is our view, that these Deed Restrictions (alternately known as Declaration, CC&R's, Schedule A, Restrictive Covenants) are hopelessly obsolete given the we have nearly identical Township Ordinances. Moreover, some of these provisions are "snob laws" and downright tyrannical:

1) e.g. #6, the right of the Seller (Barth) to trespass on your land, to snoop around looking for violations, and to do a "self help" cleaning or repair that becomes YOUR debt to him. This is potentially a blank check---open to abuse and corruption at the hands of First Service Residential, our new Landlord--if they overstep their actual authority and step into Barth's shoes. There is a reason we have civil rights the right to own private property with boundaries to keep intruders out. We at Sierra View United have determined that right in clause #6 was Barth's only--never transferred--decisively abbandoned in 1991 and again in 2003. Any attempt to exercise this "right" or similar today is trespassing on private property.

2) e.g. # 10, the right of the Seller (Barth) to refuse to allow your to construct or add on to your home, regardless of whether or not your get the proper permits from the Township. The need for this extra layer of red tape in the approval process has been expired for years and was literally waived in 2 of Barth's letters. The Township has a zoning and building office with strict codes that control setbacks and residential zoning--in the 21 Century there will be no farms or scrapyards approved on vacant lots in Sierra View. Such may not have been the case in 1976, but today this is a moot point, especially since Barth and SVA have failed to enforce these old Deed Restrictions for decades, resulting in many "non-conforming" structures. Moreover, there are dozens of non-conforming sheds and barns, such that the Laches Doctrine is a perfect defense against any effort to enforce these architectural rules. After so many years of non-enforcement, the rules become moot and can not be resurrected.

These types of contracts reflect a reality that clearly does not exist in Sierra View, or the Poconos in general. The region once attracted an affluent group of vacationers from NJ and NY who built custom homes. As these vacationers sold their lots to permanent residents, the resulting surplus made them affordable to working class people, and with that, a more rural and less suburban lifestyle. Whatever Mr. Barth had envisioned, his Declaration (Deed Restrictions) are totally innappropriate today.

Now back to more recent History. In the last couple of years, two common areas have begun to show their age:

1) A poured concrete swimming pool, with resurfacing every 10-15 years, can last over 50 years. Our pool at SVA is around that age right now. The HOA recently spent roughly $100,000 of our money patching this pool in 2024, with reports that still leaks after that repair, and DESPITE the fact that By-Laws "define any repair done to extend to useful life of an asset more than a year, and in excess of $30,000" needs membership, not Board, approval. A vote never happened.

In our view, any further attempts to replace or resurface this pool in excess of $30,000 shall be deemed a "capital improvement" subject to a membership ballot question/vote/quorum. Any emergency assessment will be deemed ultra vires, an overstep of the Board and we will not pay it.

The fact that previous expensive work was done unilaterally and failed supports our defense. It demonstrates a breach in the HOA's fiduciary duty. At the end of the day, a swimming pool is not a basic necessity like a road or a sewer--there is no emergency.

What if the pool can't be used? Let it idle and wait until every lot owner has voted on a solution the they can afford. No surprise assessments, no liens on owners that can't pay. There is no reason why our large 65+ population should be forced to pay a surprise assessment and face liens against their deeds.

Infestation of tadpoles in the SVA pool

2) The Clubhouse: The wooden deck is now closed, now that the beams that support it have rotted out. The deck was closed sometime after a member fell through the floor, sustaining serious leg injuries. From that accident the HOA's business insurance had to pay out a large settlement to him. This totally avoidable act of neglect must never be repeated---it is our view that if the clubhouse is dangerous, it should remain winterized and closed until it is repaired. This is not a new situation: this Clubhouse has had a history of sitting vacant for repairs (click to see 1985 Memo)

Our new Landlord, FSR will be happy to have its own men, Gittleman Construction rebuild that deck, at a cost that suits FSR. Unless there are multiple bids to repair the deck, we must not tolerate any self-dealing from FSR, and we must prohibit Gittleman Construction from low-balling their bid and asking for more later (let's not find out)

The Clubhouse

3) In 2016, the HOA altered the "Deed Restrictions" aka Barth's Declaration. They did so without any lot owner's approval--it takes a 67% majority in favor to make such amendments, or the rights of an original Declarant, if applicable (it's not). Proof of this appears right on SVA's website, see the footnote on their improper copy:

"*The Seller referred to in this document is Sierra View Association. (Amended 1/2016)"

As of 12/2025, there is no county record on file of any such amendments or proof that Vincent Barth assigned his Declarant's rights to SVA. The Seller is Barth/Sierra View Corp. His Declarant's rights expired by their own terms in Clause 15, and as such, only the municipal construction approvals apply here.

The butchered "Deed Restrictions" have some typos and omissions.

Other improper changes:

Clause #2, relating to the distance from the front, rear, and side "setbacks" i.e. where can put buildings:

Barth's document reads "No building shall be located on any lot nearer than 50 feet to the front line, or nearer than 30 feet to any side street line.

SVA re-wrote it as "No building shall be located on any lot nearer than 50 feet to the front line, or nearerthan [sic] 30 feet to any sideline."

Street means "street". SVA's editing from "side street" to "sideline" totally changes the meaning of this clause, where the intent of the original clearly refers to a corner lot, bordered by a front street and a side street. Chestnut Hill Township Ordinance allows 40' in front and 40' on a side street (township or private roads, State roads 60') on a corner lot. (See tab for "Township code" in the sidebar)

Ord. 119-71(b) Exceptions to minimum lot areas, lot widths and required setbacks.

(1) Corner lots. For a corner lot, the minimum required side setback depth abutting a public street shall be equal to the minimum depth of the required front setback.

This bad transcription of the Declaration is now in direct conflict with the Township's R-1 side setback requirement of 15 feet for additions and detached outbuildings. See "Township Code tab" for a copy of the Township's Table of Area, Setback, and Building Requirements, Row #2, Columns 3-5. R-R and R-1 Districts.

Clause #6, relating to "unsightly" properties, the SVA staff deleted "Seller shall have the right to enter upon the premises and take such action..."
Clause #12, relating to the clearing of trees and brush: SVA changed the phrase "any burning of any nature whatsoever" to "any building of any nature whatsoever". Context matters: this all refers to the clearing of vacant, wooded building lots Mr. Barth was selling.
Clause #16, relating to the transfer of the Declaration from Mr. Barth to anyone else: SVA deleted *this clause* from the last sentence, changing the intent of the clause completely:

"16. The Seller may designate any company or corporation for the purpose of carrying out all or part of the authority vested in the Seller by these restrictions and may transfer to any individual or *CORPORATION ANY AND ALL ROADS AND UTILITIES AND UPON ANY SUCH TRANSFER* Seller shall have no further obligation or responsibility in respect thereof.

We contend that this 2016 version deliberately omitted "roads and utiities" since the roads and utiities had already been transfered to the Township years ago. This transfer further supports the reality that after Mr. Barth sold his remaining lots and after he transferred the roads to the township, his Declarant's rights to amend or transfer the Declaration expired by its own terms (see Clause #15 "for the benefit of the remaining lands of the Seller...(and)...and any hereafeter aquired).

We further contend that the only meaningful way to protect ourselves from financial harm and abuse is to force amendments to the Declaration / "Deed Restrictions". Per the laws of the State of Pennsylvania under the Uniform Planned Community Act, we have the authority to do this as lot owners by signing + notarizing at least 838 petitions (67%) and filing the amendments with the Monroe County Recorder of Deeds. (68 PA Cons Stat § 5219)

Last, but not least, is the history of 2024-25. In 2025, as you may be aware, a group members began to challenge to HOA's handling of money and assets. The group organized primarily on Facebook under the group "Homeowners of Sierra View" one of 3 Facebook groups relating to this development. What they uncovered opened a giant can of worms: allegations of corruption, fraud, targeted code enforcement, a ton of uncollected money, and missing financial records. Whether from incompetence or corruption, there were mass resignations and turnover on the Board of Directors. Two of these Facebook organizers were elected to the Board but resigned, citing that the situation was "beyond all repair" and that terminating the HOA is the only remedy.

These HOA Board meetings have been so chaotic and disorderly that our current President of the Board and a member took their shouting match outdoors for a fist fight. This is where HOA meets WTF, see video:

RPReplay_Final1766028385.mp4

It was after these resignations that the Board resolved to hire our new Landlord, "First Service Residential" FSR, without giving membership an opportunity to review and disapprove this major decision. See Art. IV (1) e "The membership may only challenge such Board action by voting to disapprove the expenses." In a bizarre twist, then President Peggy McCall, the woman who favored FSR to be hired, resigned from her post following that resolution.

Satirical cartoon depicting the Board handing over control to a well-dressed FSR salesman.

Take action: DONATE to the Legal Fund

FirstService Residential is rated "Bad" with 1.7 / 5 on TrustpilotDo you agree with FirstService Residential's TrustScore? Voice your opinion today and hear what 331 customers have already said.

Using the special meeting powers in the By-Laws, these members gathered the necessary 100 signatures to call a meeting to debate and then schedule a special election to dissolve Sierra View Association. Following that, the SVA Attorney denied that petition on procedural grounds and disqualifying certain signatures. Their experience was educational, so they tried again, only to be denied again. See the attorney's letter by clicking the "Letters" tab.

In the interest of time, a petition, may be the only tool used to fire FSR once and for all. It takes time collect at least 100 "good standing" signatures, time to schedule a meeting, and 60 days to schedule a special election. Click (left) to read hundreds of bad reviews on Trust Pilot. FSR contract ends in June: There is no time better than the present.

Much more history and ongoing drama to cover, but this completes our report on the last 49 years of Sierra View. The authority of the HOA, the developer Mr. Barth, and any lawyer representing either one of them relies heavily on bluffing us into believing they know best and they have control. Don't believe it. The Deed Restrictions have a weakness, the HOA's conduct has been questionable, the By-Laws give lots of authority to vote on spending and amendments to YOU, the membership. The HOA and Mr. Barth will do whatever with us as long as they think we are ignorant and disorganized as a movement.

P.S. Sorry this History turned into an editorial, but here's one final note:

2025 saw a fracture in the movement to fix Sierra View. The concerned lot owners divided into 2 camps:

those who want to reform the HOA and make it work
those who want to dissolve it.

This type of in-fighting destroys movements. Beware of an "all or nothing" attitude towards progress. We at Sierra View United are offering something for everyone. We understand that abolishing the HOA is a very steep climb, but we also see a path towards a few intermediate goals that can please everyone, including members of the this Board of "Conscripts" that are in way over their heads.

So in closing, decide for yourself: do you have $1000s of dollars to hand over to FSR or SVA for what could just be a gym membership? Or would you prefer to stop this threat now? Let us know. Use the petitions in the sidebar--for the low price of a $5 notary and a postage stamp you can UNITE with other members to defend your rights. Make your home truly yours--for good.🙂

Take Action: DONATE to the Legal Fund