Northslope III Community board squabbles in court – Pocono Record

Andrew Scott Pocono Record Writer @PoconoAScott

A Monroe County Court judge will decide if a Smithfield Township community association board acted illegally when making decisions, such as reducing the number of its members and voting on a costly home re-siding project, without notifying residents in advance.

Testimony began last week and will conclude at a future date in a hearing on resident Carl Lanzisera's petition against the association board of Northslope III at Shawnee Mountain.

Lanzisera is requesting the court invalidate the board's votes to reduce the number of its members from nine to seven and spend more than $1 million of the association's budget to re-side homes on which vinyl siding was improperly installed. Lanzisera said the association's general membership, which contributes dues to the budget, was not notified in advance or present to have a say in any of these votes.

"It's really sad that Northslope III has to be exposed to this negative type of publicity," board secretary Mario Mancuso said during a brief recess at the first part of the hearing last week. "Our community really is a nice place to live, despite this legal issue being publicized."

Represented by attorney Marshall Anders, Lanzisera testified Northslope 3 has a total of 34 buildings and a total of 198 residential units in those buildings. Of the 34 buildings, 14 or 15 have cedar wood siding while the rest have vinyl siding.

Board shrinks

Lanzisera's wife, Judy King, testified to being on the board in 2013, when the board had nine members and voted to install vinyl siding over the original cedar siding on five buildings on Sky View Drive. This decision was made because the cedar siding was deteriorating and nearing the end of its use after more than 25 years.

Three of the board members at the time owned units in four of the five buildings. Between 2013 and 2014, the buildings were re-sided with vinyl, but in a shoddy manner leaving some of the units exposed to interior water infiltration damage.

In February 2015, when King was no longer a board member, the board voted to reduce its number from nine to seven members. The board found seven a more manageable number after problems with members missing multiple meetings, member Doreen DiMonte testified for the board, which is being represented by attorney Patricia Fecile-Moreland.

Lanzisera said the board voting to reduce its number, without the association's general membership being notified or having any say, is illegal.

Association By-laws dictate the board must have between three and nine members. By-laws dictate a vote by the majority of Class A general members is needed to increase, but not decrease, that number, DiMonte testified.

Board plans siding project

Meanwhile, the board had other contractors inspect the vinyl installation on the five buildings, but got too many contradicting opinions on what was done wrong, how to fix it and what the cost would be, board president John Roman testified. Wanting an independent, objective opinion that didn't come from contractors merely looking for work, the board hired the Easton-based Falcon Engineering Group to inspect the vinyl installation, Roman said.

When the board's attorney called Falcon Engineering architect Kurt Jensen to testify on the inspection's findings, Anders objected, saying Jensen hadn't done the inspection himself but instead was merely agreeing with conclusions arrived at by someone else who actually performed the inspection. County Court Judge Art Zulick allowed Jensen's testimony.

Falcon Engineering suggested a short-term plan addressing the work done on the five buildings, as well as a long-term repair/replacement/maintenance plan for all of Northslope III's buildings.

In its suggested short-term plan, Falcon Engineering found the five buildings would have to be re-sided again because of not only the improperly installed vinyl, but also more serious problems with deteriorating exterior structural conditions, Jensen said. Called by Lanzisera's attorney, Stroudsburg-based civil engineer Todd Holmes said the need for costly re-siding could have been avoided with simpler measures, such as caulking to strengthen insulation, though Jensen said such measures wouldn't have been enough.

Falcon Engineering presented the board with options of different products to replace the vinyl. In July 2015, by which time Lanzisera had been appointed to a board seat, the board chose Celect cellular composite siding as a replacement and had Falcon Engineering provide a cost estimate for the material and labor and then put the specifications out to bid.

The lowest bid coming back from a contractor was $525,000 for material and labor on the five buildings. The board decided the best way to fund this cost, without burdening dues-paying association members, is by taking up to $350,000 from the association's $761,000 Capital Reserve Replacement Fund and putting that with a bank loan amount covering the remainder, said Roman.

Lanzisera testified to raising concerns to fellow board members about the high amount of money they were looking to spend, saying this would further deplete the association's already under-funded Capital Reserve Replacement Fund and leave no money for emergencies. He said this would ultimately lead to increased dues on association members.

Costly siding project

Called by Lanzisera's attorney, Southampton-based accountant Scott Miller testified to the association having insufficient funds for the Celect re-siding.

Lanzisera said he asked why the board is focusing on just those five buildings, which happen to contain units owned by board members, when other buildings in the community need attention. He said this makes it seem like the board is looking out for just its own interests and that he again questioned the board making these decisions without any advance general membership notification or input.

Roman said he referred Lanzisera to the association's Declaration, which authorizes the association to use common or reserve funds for any work needed to any buildings, infrastructure or facilities within the community.

Roman said he referred Lanzisera also to the association By-laws stating "no unit owner vote is required for a capital expenditure for the reconstruction, repair or replacement of a damaged portion of a unit or units." The By-laws entrust the board to act in the community's best interests without the community having to be notified in advance or present at meetings for board decisions, Roman said.

However, Lanzisera's concerns only intensified when the board later learned it would cost more than $1 million to have work done on these five homes plus a number of others found with problems needing attention.

Lanzisera said he takes issue also with one version of one particular board meeting's minutes indicating he voted with the rest of the board to approve there-siding project when he in fact did not.

One version of that particular meeting's minutes, posted on the association website, states "all" members voted to approve the project, while another version of the minutes from the same meeting states Lanzisera abstained from the vote. Neither DiMonte nor Roman had an explanation for this discrepancy.

While Lanzisera said he was merely raising concerns, DiMonte and Roman said he was disrupting board meetings by constantly asking repetitive questions the board had to keep taking the time to answer instead of tending to other business on the agenda. Under cross-examination, when presented with minutes from board meetings showing no indication of Lanzisera causing any disruptions, DiMonte and Roman said not everything that happened or was said at the meetings was recorded in those minutes.

Lanzisera said he called out Roman, an attorney in New York, for illegally practicing law in Pennsylvania while not licensed to do so in this state.

In a December 2015 letter to Roman's law firm, DiMonte said Roman had never once presented himself or his firm as licensed to practice in this state. She said Roman had never tried using his legal background to influence board decisions, always withheld his opinions until after seeking fellow board members' input and suggested the board refer any legal matters to an attorney licensed to practice in this state.

Lanzisera's fourth point of contention is fellow board members voting to remove him from the board in early 2016.

While Lanzisera said he was removed for disagreeing with the board making decisions without advance notice to or input from the community, DiMonte said it was because of his disruptive, harassing behavior and defamatory statements toward her and other board members. Roman said he personally didn't want to see Lanzisera gone and that he had tried talking Lanzisera into stopping his behavior prior to the vote to remove him.

Lanzisera said the board illegally removed him. He said he was a board director, as opposed to a board officer, and that a majority vote of the association's general membership is needed to remove a director, unlike in an officer's case.

DiMonte said she reminded Lanzisera the board had appointed him to the seat vacated by a previous member, which differs from him having been elected to that seat, and that the board likewise could vote to remove him. The judge will issue a ruling after hearing all testimony.

Go here to read the rest:
Northslope III Community board squabbles in court - Pocono Record