Scroggin v. Martin's Landing Foundation | HOA Dispute Record
A complete chronological record of the ARC application, approvals, removal, fine, and appeal process.
Will presented a request to remove the trees. The meeting was also attended by neighbors the Graves, who were requesting removal of the backyard trees so they could repair their fence. The ARC raised no objection to removing the side Leyland cypress trees. The discussion centered on the backyard trees, and the ARC indicated it needed more information before giving a final answer on those.
Application filed through TownSq following the initial meeting. The May 15 fine notice would later state that no application existed on file. That statement is factually incorrect.
Both Fredrika Stillwater and Meghan Cherfoli attended. During this visit, Meghan explained to Fredrika that the Leyland cypress cluster was at end of life, planted too close together and too close to the house. This visit and Meghan's statements are captured on the property's Ring floodlight camera.
The primary purpose of this visit was to inspect the backyard cypress trees that were damaging the Graves' fence. Meghan again explained the condition of the side Leyland cypress trees to Jeff West during this visit. The side trees were not the focus of this inspection.
ARC issued written conditional approval. The three Leyland cypress trees were deferred pending a fence plan. The fence plan condition was likely the result of confusion with the Graves' fence, which was already part of the original submission. The ARC never issued a written safety determination, never provided a contrary professional assessment, and never formally denied removal of the side trees.
Jeff West came to the property and explained that because all of the backyard trees were being removed, the ARC had determined it would be too drastic a visual impact to also remove the side trees. In effect, the ARC approved removal of the healthy backyard trees that were damaging the neighbor's fence while requiring the hazardous side trees that were damaging the Scroggins' home to remain. No written follow-up or formal denial of the side trees was ever issued.
Will asked Bob Coombs (Tomahawk Tree Service, ISA Cert. No. GO-379660A) to remove dead branches and anything at risk of falling on the roof. Bob explained he could not safely do partial pruning: it would leave only the tops of the trees, making them more hazardous than before, not less. Full removal was the only responsible course of action. The ARC did not obtain a contrary professional assessment at any point.
Three Leyland cypress trees removed after the arborist determined partial pruning would increase the hazard, not reduce it. All other trees from the original application were left in place at the ARC's request.
Fine notice issued at the maximum rate ($600 per tree x 3 = $1,800). The notice incorrectly stated that no ARC application existed on file. No prior warning was given. No explanation was provided for why the maximum rate applied.
Full appeal letter and exhibit packet filed. Included: recusal requests for Fredrika Stillwater and Meghan Cherfoli citing prior involvement and conflicts of interest; records requests (Items 1 through 11); arborist report and ISA certification; photographic evidence; insurance documentation; and complete TownSq communication history.
Clarified that recusal requests were directed at specific ARC and panel members, not at Will and Amanda. Requested the hearing be scheduled no earlier than June 10 to allow adequate preparation time. Requested records be produced before the hearing. Asked that the 15-minute slot be reconsidered given the volume of documentation.
Email sent to Will, Amanda, and the full board distribution list. Will responded June 9 confirming the arborist report was already included as Exhibit C in the appeal packet submitted May 26.
Scheduling email proposed June 16 after 2:00 PM or June 17 between 11:00 AM and 3:00 PM. MLF also requested a phone call to go over the appeal process.
Noted the records request had a June 10 deadline per the appeal letter. Requested that all communications remain in writing via email rather than by phone, in order to maintain a clear and accurate record.
MLF Office stated that several items "involve procedural matters" and proposed a phone call rather than a written response. Proposed hearing for June 16 at 2:15 PM.
MLF Office denied all 11 records requests. Authority cited: By-Laws Section 11.13. Grounds: records contain confidential information relating to other homeowners, ARC deliberations, enforcement matters, appeals, fine histories, internal communications, executive session discussions, legal matters, and other privileged information. Hearing confirmed for June 16 via Zoom. No records were produced prior to the hearing.
Will and Amanda attended. Fredrika Stillwater and Meghan Cherfoli participated despite recusal requests submitted with the original appeal on May 26 and repeated in pre-hearing communications. Neither individual was excluded.
During the hearing, Fredrika Stillwater introduced a personal allegation that Will had been "talking bad about the HOA/ARC on Facebook." The allegation had no connection to the condition of the trees, the ARC application, the arborist's findings, the removal decision, or the fine amount. Will disputed the allegation. Its introduction shifted discussion away from the documented facts and procedural issues the Appeal Board was convened to review, and it confirmed the bias concerns that had prompted the recusal requests.
The discussion focused primarily on the fact that trees were removed before the ARC had expressly approved removal. The Appeal Board did not address: the false statement in the fine notice that no application existed; the absence of a contrary arborist opinion; or the important distinction between a formal denial and the conditional deferral that was actually issued.
Erin Damiani (General Manager, Homeside Properties) notified Will and Amanda by email. Fine reduced from $600 per tree to $300 per tree ($900 total). No written explanation of the reduction criteria was provided. None of the factual or procedural issues raised in the appeal were directly addressed in the decision.
Two follow-up emails sent the same day: (1) requesting the transcript or audio/video recording of the June 16 hearing; (2) requesting a written explanation of how the $300 per tree figure was determined, given that Will had submitted a formal application and engaged in the ARC process throughout.
On the recording: Erin wrote, in relevant part: "We do not record or transcribe any executive season [sic] meeting, or appeal hearing committee meetings. We do take minute, but we had 3 other hearing so that information would be privileged and only available to the board."
On the fine: "The board in good faith after appeal hearing the committee voted to reduce the fine in half to match our fining schedule due to your compelling appeal but still needed stick to the fining structure for the $300 per tree and which was drop it from $600 per as a courtesy for you taking the time to make the appeal."
No written fine policy or calculation standard was referenced or produced.
Specifically requested minutes redacted to include only their case, not any other homeowner's information. MLF stated legal counsel needed to be consulted (unavailable until June 22). Will and Amanda departed for an international trip, returning July 6.
After consulting legal counsel, Erin Damiani confirmed: "Executive Session minutes, whether from the Board of Directors Meeting or any committee, including the Appeal Committee, are considered privileged and are not available for homeowner inspection or request." No records pertaining to the hearing were produced. The following issues were not addressed in this response: the hearing recording; TownSq notes from ARC site visits; internal communications about the application or fine; identities or votes of T1 panel members; written fine calculation standards; the recusal requests; and Fredrika's conduct during the hearing.
Submitted to Erin Damiani and MLF President Sue McConnell. Requested the Board review the complete record including: original TownSq application and communication history; arborist report and all exhibits; T1 appeal packet; hearing recording; T1 decision; internal HOA and ARC notes and communications; written fine calculation standards; comparable enforcement records; the pre-hearing recusal requests for Fredrika Stillwater and Meghan Cherfoli; the decision to permit both to participate; Fredrika's conduct during the hearing; and whether that conduct influenced the T1 decision.
See the question-by-question breakdown in the table below.
Deadline for submitting materials was 4:30 PM. Erin confirmed she included the attachment submitted with the original appeal in the initial board packet sent by 5:00 PM. An updated packet was to be sent Tuesday, July 28, after an ARC committee meeting on Monday, July 27. Erin noted some board members who work full time may not have time to review the updated materials before the meeting. No written inventory of the board packet was provided at any point. Will and Amanda's repeated requests to confirm what the Board would receive were never fully answered.
Board meeting begins at 7:00 PM. T2 appeal heard in Executive Session after General Session adjourns. 15 minutes allotted. Hearing conducted via Zoom.
Our request: Full waiver of the $900 fine. We obtained ARC conditional approval before any work began. We hired an ISA Certified Arborist who confirmed that full removal was the only safe option. We removed only the three trees the arborist determined could not be made safe through partial pruning, and left four other trees from the original application in place at the ARC's request. We communicated at every step. We followed every rule. We are still being fined.
| Question Asked | Answer Given | Status | What Remained Unanswered |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Date, time, and Zoom information for the T2 hearing. | July 28, 2026 at 7 PM via Zoom. Connection details provided separately. | Fully answered | |
| 2. Whether permitted to present appeal directly to the Board. | "Yes, this appeal will be to all board members in attendance," unless quorum cannot be made. | Fully answered | |
| 3. How much time will be allotted. | 15 minutes in Executive Session. | Fully answered | Will's prior objection to 15 minutes as insufficient (raised May 28) was not addressed. |
| 4. What materials will be provided to the Board in advance. | "Anything you request we include." | Partial | What the HOA, ARC, or management would proactively include from their own records. No inventory was confirmed. |
| 5. Whether the Board will receive our original T1 appeal packet, exhibits, TownSq history, prior communications, and internal notes. | Board reviewed T1 executive session minutes at the June board meeting. All members have TownSq access. | Partial | Whether the full T1 appeal letter and exhibit packet would be included. Whether prior email correspondence would be included. Internal notes had been refused in both prior records denials with no indication that changed. |
| 6. Whether we need to resubmit documentation. | "Please just resend the information you want the board to review." | Fully answered | |
| 7. Deadline for submitting additional materials. | Friday, July 24, 2026 at 4:30 PM. | Fully answered |
| Issue | Status |
|---|---|
| Recusal requests for Fredrika Stillwater and Meghan Cherfoli, raised in original T1 appeal (May 26) and repeated in pre-hearing communications | Unanswered |
| Why both individuals were permitted to participate despite the stated conflicts of interest and prior involvement | Unanswered |
| Fredrika Stillwater's introduction of a false and irrelevant personal allegation during the T1 hearing | Unanswered |
| Whether Fredrika's allegation or other information unrelated to the violation influenced the T1 review or decision | Unanswered |
| Written standards or criteria used to calculate the fine amount | Unanswered: no written policy produced at any point |
| Why the maximum fine ($600 per tree) applied to Will's case while $300 total applied to 270 Truehedge with no application on file | Unanswered |
| Whether replanting replacement trees is possible and what guidance or requirements apply | Unanswered: no response to any replanting inquiry |