Lake Linganore Association, Inc.
October 3, 2005
The meeting was
called to order at 7 p.m. at the LLA Coldstream Drive office.
Board members
present were: Jim Cates, Jay Decker, Jim DiMeglio, Alan Dinkelacker, Brandon
Frazier.
Absent were: Lisa
Rogers, Grant Sheehan.
Staff in
attendance: AGM Seligson, CRM Gurley.
The minutes were approved with the following
amendment— on page 4 of 4, under Resident Forum, first paragraph, final
sentence should be: GM is to work up a cost estimate.
DEVELOPER’S
REPORT
Director DiMeglio
reported that Land Stewards had started clearing the land for the Audubon
Terrace townhome section. He noted that
work with the Woodridge weir wall committee was continuing. A rendering of the proposed stone wall had
been presented to residents to look at.
He said he expected the proposal to be presented at the village’s Oct.
10 meeting, as well as the revised tree planting plan. Mr. DiMeglio said that the Aspen III revised
plan had been sent to the county. He also mentioned the September 27 meeting
that Land Stewards sponsored about its proposed APFO amendment and school
construction schedule.
Vehicle Permit Study Update— AGM Seligson told the board that the
matter was essentially still in research but that a definite and significant
pattern of abuse on the part of some members was being noted. AGM said that staff had filed 35 requests
for information on vehicles registered to members. He noted that only section three of the LLA covenants reference a
definition of “member” and that describes only the property owner of record and
dependents. He said he discussed the
matter with LLA legal counsel and it was determined that the board would need
to enact a new rule. AGM said it did not have to be done through the covenants,
that it could be instituted as a rule.
He also noted that the big issue is how to capture the information and
whether members should be required to turn in a copy of their vehicle
registration during the annual LLA membership processing period. He said the board needed to discuss the
matter further and staff needed to continue research to determine the best
approach. Director Dinkelacker asked if
staff would come up with a recommendation for a solution. AGM Seligson said
yes. Director Dinkelacker asked if
letters had been sent out to those residents involved in the sampling to let
them know they are in violation. AGM
said that had not been done because staff was not certain as to what rule it is
enforcing. He added that a rule needed
to be in effect. Director Frazier said that the initial read of the covenants
lead the board to believe this matter could be enforced based on the existing text.
Director Dinkelacker directed the AGM to have letters sent out to violators to
see what kind of reaction would be generated.
The AGM said that the letters could be sent but that handling the matter
would be a “slippery slope” until a rule was put into effect. Director Decker
said that by sending a letter at this time notifying residents that the
association is aware they are “cheating” that it may alter the future behavior
of some.
Covenant Change Vote— CRM Gurley presented what would be the
full mailing documents to be used in the upcoming vote on the proposed changes
for the LLA covenants (sections 5, 18, 29). At the previous board meeting,
directors expressed concern that residents seemed to be confused about what the
proposed text actually means. A
separate sheet was to be included in the mailing that would show members the
existing covenant language and the proposed covenant language, as well as note
the exceptions to two of the covenants that are a result of state and federal
law. She noted that if the board wanted
to clarify the proposed language that it would have to go back to legal
counsel. CRM Gurley noted that the
board needed to decide what kind of process it wanted to set up to deal with
the vote, whether it would call a meeting for purpose of voting on the matter
(which is not required) or simply setting a deadline for receipt of the
votes. The board decided to send out a
notice in December announcing a workshop for January and to tie the voting on
the matter to the date of annual meeting in May.
Land Stewards APFO Amendment & School
Construction Proposal— A
Powerpoint presentation of the APFO amendment and proposed school construction
schedule was made by Land Stewards partner John Clarke. Text of the presentation is attached to the
minutes. He noted that the APFO
amendment addressed only the needs of the Eaglehead development and was not
designed to assist the goals of other developers in the area. The amendment
would allow Land Stewards to essentially construct the school facilities that
specifically met the needs of the number of students generated by its building
in the community. He noted that except
for the middle school level, Land Stewards plan made an improvement in school
facilities for the county; the middle school numbers could only be improved if
the county actually invested funds in new buildings for that level, Mr. Clarke
noted. He noted that approval of the
APFO amendment and the school construction schedule did not give his company
carte blanche approval to building because one stipulation is that annual
building is capped. Mr. Clarke said
that Land Stewards is offering a solution that brings benefits to both sides
and that Land Stewards is putting up a significant amount of money ($43 million+)
up front on the school construction plan before it even begins to build. He said he hoped the board would get behind
the plan and show its support before the October 19 meeting with the Frederick
County Planning Commission.
Director Frazier
said that the board did plan to say something at the October and asked staff to
notify the county so that someone can speak at the meeting. Director Dinkelacker asked that information
be forwarded to directors Rogers and Sheehan so they can be updated on the
matter.
Election
Guidelines re: Developer Vote Count— CRM Gurley told the board that the
revised guidelines addressing the developer’s vote count would be presented at
the next board meeting.
Meeting with county re: Golf Cart Exception—
Director Dinkelacker
noted that he and GM Edwards would be attending the Oct. 4 public hearing on
the county’s legislative requests for 2006 to ask that the golf cart exception
be included in the request list.
CDA Update— LLCS secretary Larry Dusold told the
board that the stormwater management easement needed to be finalized before the
bid information can be released. Director
Frazier said that it was his understanding that the LLA could submit a letter
of intent that would fulfill the obligation so that bid information could be
released. Mr. Dusold said that the
LLCS, county and LLA officials were to meet again on Oct. 10. He said that LLCS was waiting to hear from county
project manager Terry Irwin regarding a meeting he had with development review
staff. Mr. Dusold said that the LLCS would have to pay an approximate $18,000
administrative fee on the road and SWM plans to the county’s permit review
department. That fee is attached to
one-half of the CDA project. Director Frazier said that the minutes of the last
meeting stated that the engineer’s estimate listed the cost of the project at
$10 million. LLCS president Charlotte
Dusold said that figure did not include the refinancing of the bond, as well as
other “rabbits”. She said that the LLCS needed to get the bid back in order to
get the refinancing numbers settled.
RESIDENT FORUM
Director
Dinkelacker noted that from this time forward, all committee and village
reports would be presented at the second meeting of the month instead of the
first meeting of the month. He said
that the second meeting of the month would only be committee reports and that
the first meeting of the month would hear regular board matters.
ADJOURNMENT
Director Frazier
made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Director Decker seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Clay Edwards Jay Decker
LLA General
Manager LLA
Secretary