Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Concerns topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents tell Lakemore council they received master‑association invoice for dam repairs; attorneys dispute obligation
Summary
During public comment, residents described receiving an invoice tied to a Hidden Lake Village Master Agreement demanding assessments for dam/retention‑pond repairs and possible liens. One HOA president said her attorneys (Kamin and Cusimano) found no document obligating her 'detached' HOA to contribute; residents and council discussed legal ambiguity and Summit County retention‑pond violations.
A sustained public‑comment exchange at the Village of Lakemore meeting focused on a disputed invoice residents said they received under a "Hidden Lake Village Master Agreement" demanding payment for repairs to a dam or retention pond.
A resident described receiving a demand letter and, reading from correspondence, said the invoice insisted "you owe us a couple $103,100 dollars" for repairs; they said the homeowners association (HOA) lawyers threatened liens if assessments were not paid. The same resident said the demand letter used language tying every owner to the master association by deed acceptance and called the wording "slimiest language" they had seen.
Another resident identified as the president of a detached HOA said she had retained attorneys (named in the transcript as Kamin and Cusimano) who, in their review, "did not find any document that requires the association for any point detached HOA or its owners to contribute to the Master Association expense for the dam." She told the council that her association had been formed before the master association's declaration, and that their governing documents therefore do not make them liable for the master association's assessments.
Speakers also reported Summit County had documented retention‑pond violations in the Hidden Lakes development in 2022–23 and described site conditions, drainage patterns and a recent increase in runoff after tree clearing. Residents said the master association had sent correspondence charting boundaries and coordinates; some described the correspondence as legalistic and poorly written. One commenter said the master association's apparent sole owner and member was pressuring homeowners and that threatened liens had not yet appeared on title searches.
Council suggested residents remain after the meeting to discuss the matter with staff and recommended coordination among the affected HOAs and legal counsel. The issue remains unresolved on the record; the transcript records both the homeowners' claims of improper invoicing and their counsel's opinion that some detached HOAs are not legally obligated to contribute.
