We believe communication will bring forth the majority's opinions. This is where we will post our neighbors comments and opinions on events, survey results, and actions by our POA Board that effect us. If you are a property owner please feel free to send us your comments for publication.

The most important thing happening here is a strong effort to make Sugarhill a place where owners don't feel intimidated by an aggressive POA that does things in secret. Tell us about any type of events happening to you in Sugarhill that you think might be of interest.

This is so horrible that they hired this company secretly behind all our backs and that they drive around not 1x but 2x a week looking for violations. Also our President Ken Kappra who was behind this secret plot he now has his home listed for sale. So he creates all these problems and leaves. And the 4 board members did this vote when Dan Smith could not come and vote because they knew his feelings on this signature management. We as homeowners feel totally violated that they would contract these people without any of us knowing. This no cream or no white windows is ridiculous. And no standing seam metal is ridiculous. 8/16/2018 12:48 AM

---

Reminder to all owners: it will be difficult if not impossible to sell when we live in a police state 8/13/2018 6:16 PM

---

I think these surveys are great! They provide us with much needed information. Thank you for having a place where concerned homeowners can voice their opinions. 8/13/2018 3:48 PM

---

The way surveys would be used could be easily determined by surveys. 8/13/2018 1:58 PM

---

These surveys are "push" surveys that tend to suggest the answere desired by the author. My suggestion is that surveys be objective in order to be credible. 8/13/2018 10:06 AM

---

Thank you! 8/13/2018 10:01 AM

---

I support specific aspects of community management being done by majority vote: ex. covenants simplification, new product approvals and "new" capital improvements. However, the current, and any future board, needs to have the authority to act in the best interest of the community with regards to community maintenance and handling of unexpected issues without waiting for a vote. 8/13/2018 9:38 AM

---

I was on the Board as the treasurer for 6 years. This is likely the most active position. I can't see the need for an outside organization to manage our plan. We don't need bi-weekly inspection of our properties. We need 5 honest and involved people who communicate to all of us as the Board. 8/13/2018 8:48 AM

---

It’s time to update and simplify our deed restrictions, covenants and bylaws so they reflect the interests of the majority of homeowners in Sugar Hill 8/13/2018 4:29 AM

---

Would we consider seasonal residents for board positions? As a seasonal resident I would volunteer to assist with day to day tasks on a regular basis as needed. 8/12/2018 8:52 PM

---

Who are you, and what is the website referenced. Is it in accord with the Protective Covinents and Bi Laws? 8/12/2018 7:50 PM
Our response: We can find no mention in the covenants and bylaws restricting the first amendment to the United States Constitution. Also, he obviously got the survey, he most likely got the introductory email with the website link that was sent 5 days before the survey to the same email address.

---

Thank you for your work! What the POA has done is unethical. 8/12/2018 7:05 PM

---

I’ve also received a Threatening letter from signature not a big deal but it was unprofessional and unfounded 8/12/2018 5:53 PM

---

I think that we need an immediate audit that has no connection with the existing board in order to determine our current financial status before the new board takes over. 8/12/2018 4:49 PM

---

Thanks, keep up the good work! 8/12/2018 4:30 PM

---

Thanks for your efforts to return sanity to Sugarhill 8/18/18 6:07:47 PM

---

We need to Evan better enforcement of rules not a group who wants to lessen enforcement and create dissension among owners. Only a Mgt company will consistently enforce architectural guidelines 8/20/18 12:48:17 PM
Our response: We are assuming the "Evan" typo was intended to be "have even". It should be noted that this respondent indicated "no" for having visited the website. Our group has absolutely NO intention of "creating dissension among owners" that job has already been instigated by four members of our current Board.

---

Can we please update / revisit / redesign the Sugarhill Signage / Logo at the entrance. I think it's run it's course and new fresh look with new signage would be welcoming as the first thing visitors see when entering the community. Thanks! 8/20/18 1:43:11 PM

---

I think we are moving in the right direction to have a new board and a new process that represents the homeowners. We as homeowners should not have things forced down our throat that we did not agree with or vote on. I can only speak for myself but I believe most homeowners would agree that we need to remove four board members, hire a new management company to assist us with clerical work and involve the entire community with correct decisions so that we don't lose money or the value of our homes. Myself and members of my family believe that we should have limitations on board members and that we should be able to vote on large items that concern our subdivision.
8/20/18 4:52:03 PM

---

The following was posted in the “nominate new board members field”. We think they meant for it to go in the comments:
I think you people are a small group of 'nutburgers'. What's your "N" size, and why don't you reveal that? 81 percent of what? Go get lives, people.
Our response:
“N” size is the number of respondents to the referenced question in Survey 1.
So here’s the math:
66 people responded to that question. (“N” size)
82% of those people “strongly disapproved” of the Board’s actions. (54 people)
15% just disapproved (10 people)
So out of the “N size” of 66 people 64 either strongly disapproved or just disapproved making a more accurate tally of 97% of the N size of 66 or 64 people and what we would call a very clear majority of residence.
This was posted in the comments by the same respondent:
You pathetic losers..... 8/20/18 8:44:03 PM
Our response: This respondent apparently didn't check the results of Survey 1 before the comments were made. This respondent answered "yes" to the question asking if the website had been read, where the link to Survey 1 results are clearly posted.