Southern Walk Neighborhood Activity Area - Meeting Tuesday, March 25th 8:00 AM

There is a meeting at 8:00 am on Tuesday, March 25th for Broadlands Associates, LLP to meet with the homeowners to discuss the playground near Highview Trail Place. Kelly & Candy (Broadlands Associates, LLP) said they would park their cars at the bottom of the paved trail on StoneHollow and walk up the paved trail up toward Highview Trail Place. The purpose of the meeting is to listen to the homeowners to find out if there is interest in the playground (swing set, jungle gym and bench).

 

I thought this would be a good time to alleviate some confusion that has arisen in the past...Broadlands Associates LLP is the developer - AKA Van Metre, not the homeowners association which is Broadlands Association Inc.

 

Just out of Curiosity, why would you meet on a Tuesday, in the morning, at a time when most homeowners would be at work? Good job VM!

 

I believe that the meeting is being held at 8am so that the affected homeowners can be there to see the proposed site(s) in the daylight.

This pre-arranged meeting was requested by Van Metre with the six affected homeowners that received the notice, not as a general community meeting.

 

Oh, but it would still be more logical to have the meeting at a time when it would be more convenient for homeowners to attend, vice convenient for VM, which is typically the case.

I do think that it effects more than 6 homeowners however. Some want the tot lot, some don't, it would nice if all parties could voice an opinion. Truthfully, I don't want to see the trees cut down, but I would like to see more play areas for the kids around here. I think there is plenty of other areas that would be better served with a tot lot/play ground than that spot. But, just my opinion.

It will be interesting to see the outcome.

 

According to Kellie York the meeting is for people who have an interest in the Neighborhood Activity Area. According to Kellie, "we are setting up a meeting with homeowners for Tuesday, March 25th at 8:00 at the asphalt trail. Please help us get the word out there to the neighbors who would like to attend.". She told me that they were expecting 25 to 30 people.

 

According the the letter that Kellie York sent to the homeowners, she wanted to meet with "neighbors along the Stone Hollow / Highview Trail path". So it seems that Van Metre is continuing their pattern of contradicting themselves. Not surprising, I guess.

 

I am curious why another play area is needed. I don't see the ones we already have overflowing, kids lining up waiting for a turn. But, is it because neighbors need one closer to their homes. I do have a 3 year old, and I must say if we needed to go to a playground there is 3 options for us already. When it comes to mature trees, is it worth to take down 20-30 (may be more)years old history down. Is it for convenience or necessity?

Also, I really think kids like to play in an unstructured areas too. It makes them more creative. My feeling is, if I had to vote, between one more playground versus more mature trees, I prefer to keep the trees.

To supply the demand for more playground if there is any, we can look at the ones we have and improve them by adding more to them.

In regards to the time of this meeting it sure is "peak" for getting up and going to work and school.... It will be impossible for me to attend, that's when I have to be at work, 8am. I believe that this does effect everyone that lives not only right at the location but others that would like to be involved.

 

Couple of things.

VM probably submitted plans to the county that included a tot lot in that section. County is probably holding VM to its plan.

Residents with little ones should have a lot within a reasonable walking distance (for the little ones, not for adults ) and should not have to pack kid(s) in a car everytime they want to go to a tot lot.

 

If possible, could someone please summarize the discussions/results of this morning's meeting?

Thanks!

 

Certainly.... IN summary VanMetre brought ,what was to me, a very good plan to put a tot lott and a bench area in the orignally planned location on the path. They had a well thought through plan that tastefully would build the playground and surround it with trees.........

In attendence there were a small handfull of homeowners from Stone Hollow residences that would have the tot lott in their backyards. These homeowners insisted that they had no idea that this lott was part of the original plan and were not told that it would be built. They clearly stated that they would take legal action should any construction begin.

There was only one other homeowner besides me who were in support of the tott lott being built. So VanMetre was very recptive to the audience and basically put this back to square one with "having a group work through another solution such as putting playground equipment at the nature center"

From my perspective with 2 very young kids and likely one more coming..... Having a playground in walking distance would mean a lot.....and when we purchased we thought there would be one as it was in the plan....

I personally believe that a community park lets children socialize and play together - and provides the community with a spot where parents can socialize with their neighbors...... We are one of the very few sections of this community, let alone of ashburn, where there is no playground in walking distance..... Trust me that the next generation of families will also want a playground in walking distance and in this growing suburb not having this built will reduce the value of all of our homes...

Having one in your backyard is no substitute to going to a community park - and was insulted by the insuation that I should just buy one.

While I can appreciate the reality this means for those on Stone Hollow, I sincerely hope that all of those in support of this can post to this board (at a minimum) and attend the next HOA meeting.

VanMetre if you are reviewing this please take a leadership approach as everybody will not be happy and stick to what the majority of homeowners want. I would suggest an online survey (with one vote per house) for all of those within 1/4 mile from the two entrances to the trail.....A committee is just a wasste of time and another full year will pass

Then if the majority want you to change the plan... fair enough

Again to those that are negatively impacted, I am very sympathetic if they were not told the truth by VM...... However, lets not let the issues of a small handfull determine that the Broadlands plan needs to be changed.

 

I personally do not agree with your statement that home values will decrease lacking a tot lot nearby:rolleyes3: I bought in Broadlands for the treed areas and I am also near a tot lot. If I had it to do over again I would buy where a tot lot does not exist. To each his own...

 

Wow. I was there today and this guy just does not get it. How does his right to have a tot lot outweigh those whose property is adjacent to the area? Obviously they are more affected and their opinions should count more.

He was one of two in favor, with 12+ opposed, and there are others opposed that weren't there, so I take exception to the "small handful" comment.

Here is a more realistic summary:

1) Van Metre came with draft plans to put a tot lot at the location as currently shown on the county plans. The county plans call for a "Neighborhood Activity Area", which does not have to be a tot lot. It could be a bench, a garden, etc. VM indicated that they are open to a plan wherein they would minimize the impact to the area and instead install additional tot lot equipment near the Nature Center.

2) Homeowners expressed their opposition to the plan as shown by VM, which would require moving the trail, grading the area, installing retaining walls, etc. The safety aspect of having a tot lot in an area next to a steep drop-off into backyards was discussed, as well as the impact to property values, view into people's bedrooms, living rooms, etc.

3) Given the impasse, Van Metre asked if those present would be willing to participate in a committee that would provide a recommendation on how to proceed. With one or two exceptions, everyone indicated that they would be willing to be involved.

 

Was the new proposed area further up the trail presented? I was out there on Monday and that seemed like a good spot. A large, flat area could be cleared out and there would still be a wooded buffer between it and the backyards of the homes off Highview Trail Place.

 

I wasn't there... I am not one of the homeowners who have the possibility of this being built on their property line. But with all due respect, it's not fair to say how many are opposed or in favor, because not all votes are represented! I've heard from one person who said this was supposed to be a "private" meeting of only the homeowners whose property lines are impacted. I can understand why they would ALL be opposed to these ideas. However, word leaked out via this forum and perhaps other methods that this meeting was taking place, so a few people who care a lot about this -- like Rich -- attended to give their opinion as well. Had all homeowners within a quarter mile radius been given notice and been given the opportunity to share their opinion, we can't be sure what the "vote" would have been.

 

There was strong opposition to that site expressed to Van Metre, and today they said that they had abandoned that site. That area has many more obstacles to overcome: it is a "steep slope" area that would require extensive grading and construction of retaining walls. It is also a "tree save area" on the county plans, and it would be very difficult to get any heavy equipment in there to do this work.

 

As people who are in favor of the tot lot keep on pointing out what they were told by Van Metre, let's be clear about couple of things.

1) They were told about this "TOT LOT" on a brochure that was handed out at the sales office to some homeowners and not to some homeowners. IF you take the time to see the brochure that you were given, it shows Rose bud park. On the same brochure it states that "The land plan may be amended from time to time, and Buyers of property in Broadlands should not rely on the future development of Broadlands as shown on illustrations, depicitions, or maps."

2) Loudoun County's requirement is for "Neighborhood Activity Area". Period. Nothing more or nothing less. Which consists of many other options besides a "TOT LOT" as it was pointed out by glencastle and confirmed by Van Metre.

3) How does placing a "TOT LOT" on top of a steep hill ( more than 10 foot drop ) serve the "community " ??

 

Can someone please forward the contact information of the person who conducted the "one sided" tour, so that I can send them the letter that I sent to the registered agent of VM last year. My feeling is that equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights. Lets start the process (again).

 

In addition, here is some info about potential obligations which may not necessarily result in a "park bench." Can someone pls merge all of these threads (I believe there are at least 3)?

http://www.broadlandshoa.org/hoaforum/showthread.php?p=48428#post48428

Thanks!

 

Neighbor...Just curious about the source of your county information. Are these generic requirements for residential neighborhoods, or is this text part of the agreement between Van Metre and Loudoun County as it pertains to Southern Walk?