Lake Linganore
Association, Inc.
January 16,
2006
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, Lisa Rogers, Grant Sheehan.
BoD Absent: none.
Staff in attendance: GM Edwards, AGM Seligson, CRM Gurley.
Minutes of the December 5, 2005 regular board meeting were approved with one correction: under Finance Report: correct the typographical error in the figure $79,000.
DEVELOPER’S REPORT
Director DiMeglio reported that on Wednesday, Jan. 11, he had met with the Aspen Village Committee and residents to review the subdivision plan for the nine new lots off of Accipiter. He said that there was overwhelming support from the village for the plan, which he showed to the board of directors. He noted that the plan includes a dual driveway entry; one driveway is opposite Picea Court and serves five of the homes, with the other driveway coming off Eaglehead Drive to serve the other four homes.
Mr. DiMeglio said the plan— specifically the driveway coming off Eaglehead Drive— could be a problem but that Land Stewards decided to send the plan to the county to get its reaction. He said this two driveway plan actually provided the least disturbance to the land. He said that Land Stewards had a “plan B” if the county did not permit the driveway off of Eaglehead Drive.
Director Decker said he had concerns about cars parking along the driveways and how that would impact access to the home. Director Frazier asked whether there were any driveways off of Eaglehead Drive anywhere else in the community. Director DiMeglio said there was not. Director Rogers asked about a plan presented four months ago. Director DiMeglio said there was not much progress on that one and that the hold up was the result of difference on the LLA road standards. Director Rogers asked whether the traffic study was complete. Mr. DiMeglio said the study had been submitted in early December and expected an answer in January. He also noted that the county was interested in doing its own study, although it has spent a year working out the details of the study that Land Stewards was to conduct. He said the study had been submitted to the county, though not accepted to-date by the county.
NEW BUSINESS
Pool Policy Age of Admission— The current policy on the age of admission to community pools states: LLA Pool Regulations. Section 23. Pool Admission Policy: a.) Children 10 years of age or older who can demonstrate acceptable social behavior and swimming ability by passing the swimming test to the satisfaction of the manager, may be at the pool alone. Swimming test consists of 25-yard lap (from shallow end to deep end) without stopping and treading water for one minute. Children under 10 years must be accompanied by a responsible person 16 years or older. Anyone under 18 years of age can supervise only one child at a time.
GM Edwards recommended to the directors that the LLA policy be changed to reflect the age restriction cited in the policy of the pool management company, Century Pool, which is 12 years of age. He said that Century Pool manages most of the pools in Frederick County and that Eaglehead is the only one whose age permission policy is 10 years of age. He said that Century Pools was concerned about the difference and how it impacts the company’s liability and approached LLA management about making the change. Mr. Edwards said that he would like to bring as much as possible Century’s pool policies into those of the LLA.
Director Sheehan told the board that management should write a version of the proposed language for the policy change and bring it before the board at a meeting in February. He also instructed that a notice about the policy change be published in the February issue of LakeTalk. He said residents should be given a chance to respond to the proposed change. Director Frazier said the matter technically did not need public input because the heart of the matter was liability, an issue that permitted the general manager to make the final decision. Director Sheehan said that though that was the case, the matter was near to the habits and practices of residents and that the opportunity should be granted to the public. GM Edwards said he wanted to have LLA pool rules reflect those of Century Pool because the pool company’s policies mirrored state code.
Associate Pool Membership Fee for 2006— CRM Gurley said the board needed to set the 2006 associate pool membership fee so that application forms could begin to go out in the mail. She said the fee for the past two year’s had been $475 and that within those two years the association had not sold the maximum number of memberships allotted. The recommendation was to not raise the fee this year but to keep it at the $475 rate.
MOTION: Director Decker made a motion to keep the 2006 associate pool membership fee at $475. Director Rogers seconded the motion. VOTE: Six of the directors voted in favor of the motion; none of the directors voted against the motion.
ECC Appointments— The ECC recommended to the board that LLA members Michael Pepin and Jonathan Pembroke be appointed to the committee.
MOTION: Director Sheehan made a motion to approve the recommendation. Director Cates seconded the motion. VOTE: Six directors voted in favor of the motion; none of the directors voted against the motion.
Aspen North CDA Budget— Aspen North CDA Committee chairperson MJ Minton approached the directors about setting a budget for the CDA to keep the project moving forward to its next public hearing. GM Edwards said that he requested cost estimates from three of the professionals who will be involved but did not get all the information he needed to present to the board but estimated that the CDA would need an initial budget of $35,000 until after the next county hearing. Ms. Minton said that she had figures to give the board: county bond counsel, $100,000 (deferrable); legal counsel $60,000 (deferrable); new 501c(3) legal cost, $7500. She said the 501c(3) that would be created for this CDA could be owned by the LLA. Director Dinkelacker said that legally the LLA could not own the 501c(3) and Director Cates said he preferred the LLA did not own it. Director Cates said that individuals, and not only lawyers, could do the IRS paperwork required to create a 501c(3) and that he preferred the committee do the related paperwork instead of hiring a lawyer.
Ms. Minton said that the Aspen North committee relied on the LLA for the budget of the project and that the committee preferred to have experts do the legal work to establish the 501c(3). Director Frazier noted that members of the Aspen North committee always had the option of funding the lawyer.
Some directors expressed concern about putting out more money without having a plan of action for cost, start-up and long-term and official budget developed for the project. Director Sheehan asked whether in the Linganore CDA, residents were asked to put up funding for a 501c(3) and whether the board was operating with the same fairness in this matter. Director Dinkelacker said that the board needed to know the costs of the CDA by the next board meeting and directed the GM to prepare the budget. Director Frazier said that he was interested in having the board provide someone to pull this plan together but that the board had not given the GM enough time to do that and that the board might discuss this during its executive session later that evening.
Covenant Change Workshop—
Director Dinkelacker convened a workshop to discuss the language in the proposed text changes to covenants in Article VII, sections 5, 18, and 29.
A resident asked for the specific definition of a commercial sign. He said he ran a business in Eaglehead and used signs within the community for specific purposes. If these signs are considered commercial he wanted to know if there was a way to apply to use them. Director Sheehan explained that the word commercial was removed from the proposed covenant change to avoid having to specifically define commercial signs. He said that the ECC would have to handle the application and decide and that the decision could be appealed to the board of directors.
Another resident asked whether a line regarding signs would be included in the application. He said that with the new ECC Guidelines coming online requiring that a photo of the sign be submitted could help save time in application process.
AGM Seligson said that the board needed to be careful because at this time only real estate signs are given any kind of leeway, and that is limited. Other signs are in violation of the covenants. He said the language in the proposed ECC Guidelines was left vague and that now the board was putting the responsibility on to the ECC. He added that if that was to be the case the guidelines would have to have “back-end” definitions. He said that the ECC Guidelines that the board would be reviewing in the coming weeks does not address this matter or any of the multitudes of related considerations. Director Sheehan said he thought it was within the ECC parameters to include details but that by defining things the association could end up excluding legitimate uses or permitted things and he suggested staying within the “wisdom of doing things on a case by case basis”.
Director Decker said that he felt the new language was too ambiguous and that the association should keep the language that the boat should not be seen from lots or streets. Director Dinkelacker said that the new language would still keep intact the goal of properly keeping a boat in the yard or lot. Director Sheehan said that anyone who is denied the ability to keep a boat in their yard can always appeal the decision to the board.
Director Dinkelacker said that Eaglehead is a boat community and that there will never be enough boat racks to accommodate the population so people should be able to keep a boat in their yard. He noted that some yards would not be large enough to build a screening mechanism and that despite that those residents should be able to keep a boat in their yard.
With no further questions from those in attendance, the board concluded the covenant change workshop.
MATTERS FOR BOARD INFORMATION
Land Stewards Presentation on APFO Text Amendment/School Construction Proposals— Land Stewards partners John Clarke and Bob Wilcox spoke to the LLA directors about a revised version of the developer’s APFO text amendment and the related construction program. Mr. Clarke noted that the county’s Board of Education had agreed that it would support the revised version of the proposal. Director Frazier said that he did not see anything in the revised proposal that should change the LLA directors’ support for the amendment and construction proposal.
MOTION: Director Frazier made a motion that the LLA BoD continue to show its support for the Land Stewards revised text amendment. Director Rogers seconded the motion. Mr. Clarke said that if the LLA directors could show their support for the revised proposal at the county commissioner’s public hearing on the matter the next evening. Director Sheehan suggested that each individual board member send and email to all the county commissioners and then follow up with a hard copy letter to the county on the matter. VOTE: five of the directors voted in favor of the motion; none of the directors voted against the motion; one director (DiMeglio) abstained from the vote.
ECC Guideline Revisions— Copies of the proposed ECC Guidelines revision were included in the January 16 board packet. Directors were asked to read the document to be prepared for discussion and a vote at the February 6 BoD meeting.
RESIDENT FORUM
A new resident, Rudy Smallwood, asked whether satellite dishes were okay to install on homes in Eaglehead. Director Frazier explained that the dishes were okay to install but that the resident should check with the compliance specialist about placement. AGM Seligson said that as long as the dish was one of the smaller kind it could be installed and that placement of the dish on the house was determined by the equipment.
ADJOURNMENT
Director Sheehan made a motion to
adjourn the regular meeting and convene for the executive session. Director Cates
seconded the motion. The meeting was
adjourned at 9:05 p.m.