1. Yes, it's a whole new look! Have questions or need help? Please post your question in the New Forum Questions thread Click the X to the right to dismiss this notice
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Seeing tons of unread posts after the upgrade? See this thread for help. Click the X to the right to dismiss this notice
    Dismiss Notice

Path connecting Stone Hollow and Highview Trail Pl

Discussion in 'Broadlands Community Issues' started by Go Skins, Jul 9, 2006.

  1. vacliff

    vacliff "You shouldn't say that."

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Likes Received:
    344
    I would encourage any and all of you to come to an HOA meeting and speak your mind.
    Our next meeting is next Tuesday at 5:30pm at the Nature Center. If you can't make it that early, the meetings usually run until 7-7:30pm.

    Our Annual Meeting will be May 8th.
     
  2. Merlin

    Merlin New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0

    We have issues with anything being built or placed behind our house, on a lot for which we paid a lot premium to have an undisturbed tree save area. Please imagine what it would feel like to get lucky enough to land a wooded lot, happily pay a premium for that lot and then come home one day to a notice saying they will be bulldozing it down in a few days. What was our money for? No, it's not all gone, but the basic serenity of the area has been disturbed....and will be even more so if anything goes in that spot.

    The tot lot was supposed to be up on the other end of Stone Hollow - it was in the plans. If anyone wants to be upset, they should be upset with Van Metre for not sticking to their plan. Had we not paid a lot premium, we would not have as much of an issue with this...
     
  3. 1grtchr

    1grtchr Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2006
    Messages:
    209
    Likes Received:
    6
    I completely understand your position and would feel the same way in your position. And I am also in complete agreement that the ORIGINAL location should be upheld and that is where I stand on it. I am confused, did the original location (at the other end of Stone Hollow from where you are) occur AFTER people purchased their lots, or was it in the plans to begin with? I'm just wondering if the homeowners on the other end are in the same situation as you, or complained about it after the fact even though it was originally in the plans.
     
  4. rich351854

    rich351854 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    464
    Likes Received:
    2
    I will be at the HOA meeting and want the tot lot where it was ORIGINALLY supposed to be. Furthermore, I want it prioritized - my kids are young and this can not be 2 years away. They owe us this tot lot, and many more will benefit than be "hurt". THis is a family community and we are left in a section that offers no real benefits that others have.

    This will help most of our home values in the future (we have a tot lot in walking distance).....

    Cliff, what is VM's legal obligation?
     
  5. pamD

    pamD New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    359
    Likes Received:
    1
    If the house-buying process taught me anything, it is that the builder has very few legal obligations. It seems to me that there were caveats to the information that they gave all along the way, and the overall site plan was #1 among the things that could change.

    Not to say that Merlin doesn't have a complaint. But it also seems to me that there is still good bit of open land between the proposed area and your lot (this coming from someone who has a path practically in my back yard).

    BTW - I question this "lot premium" thing ... and wonder if it isn't just a ploy to make the starting price lower. How many people *didn't* pay a lot premium?
     
  6. sharse

    sharse TeamDonzi rocks!!

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,795
    Likes Received:
    9
    I'm still not clear on why it is not being built in the original location closer to Ridgeway where it was shown on all the plans. I do know that a homeowner was complaining, but I don't know if there is more to it than that? Some environmental reason it couldn't be put in? Or was it just one loud voice that caused all of this? Anyone know?
     
  7. Merlin

    Merlin New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    1grtchr - My understanding is that the ORIGINAL location was in the original plans, and it was complained about after the fact. I also know that one of the loud voices that complained about that location has sold and moved, but I believe there were several. I really think some folks failed to do their homework before selecting their lots.

    PamD - I agree that it always feels like the builder has the upper hand. I know we don't have anything in writing about what a lot premium gets us. But it seems like VM thought we and a few other residents had strong enough ground to stand on not to go through with the project. I know it's not directly in our backyard, but it's an impact nonetheless....and a lot of our feelings are based on principle at this point.

    sharse - I walked the original location with Pat Leader from Van Metre. We also have some emails I can dig up. In general, their message was that the Claiborne/Stone Hollow location was overall better for the community. Translation to me - they thought they would be pissing off less people at our end of Stone Hollow than the other.

    If I can dig up more info from our files, I will share.

    When selecting a lot, we reviewed the plans and noted the tot lot location closer to Ridgeway. We made a very deliberate decision to choose a lot on the OTHER end. We really thought after making a case to VM with some of our other neighbors that a tot lot at Stone Hollow/Claiborne was a dead issue. I didn't think the end result would be NO tot lot for our area of Southern Walk. I agree that is very wrong as well.
     
  8. Merlin

    Merlin New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay folks, found our Pat Leader from Van Metre letter. The Stone Hollow/Claiborne location was better from their perspective because a) they could make the tot lot bigger and include a play lawn b) they could install it farther from any homeowner's property line than in the previous location and include a buffer of natural trees c) the area required minimum clearing, while previous site would require taking out most large natural trees d) natural tree area provides shade, previous site had none

    I'm paraphrasing, but those are the basics. This basic info was also included in a letter that went to most homeowners on the street on July 20, 2006. It said "the original location did not allow enough space to install all of the play equipment as originally proposed or for adequate screening of the park from the surrounding homeowners".

    They couldn't figure that out before they put it in the plans to begin with??
     
  9. vacliff

    vacliff "You shouldn't say that."

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Likes Received:
    344
    My understanding is that Van Metre proffers certain amounts of space for community recreation, such as tot lots. I don't believe they are required to put certain things in certain locations. As long as the overall amount is within the proffer requirements, the county will accept it.

    If there is a large number of residents that demand to the county that Van Metre put in tot lots where they were advertised to be, they may put more pressure on Van Metre to follow through.

    The HOA can try to exert some influence along these lines, but the HOA has not heard from many residents about the removal of the tot lot from the originally planned location.
     
  10. sharse

    sharse TeamDonzi rocks!!

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,795
    Likes Received:
    9
    I walk the path connecting Stone Hollow and Highview Trail regularly, and while I'd like to have a tot lot there, in theory, I must admit that it's so hilly I'm not sure WHERE there would be adequate space.
     
  11. 1grtchr

    1grtchr Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2006
    Messages:
    209
    Likes Received:
    6
    I'm sure Van Metre with their resources can find a way, especially since it was in the original plans. Don't see how the land has changed since their plans. If they can build houses on hills, they can certainly make a tot lot work.
     
  12. Neighbor

    Neighbor Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2004
    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    6
    I am ready and willing to exert that pressure. I didn't realize that they dumped plans for both locations. In the end it looks like VM will disappoint one of the groups. The options are:

    1. Build nothing (possibly anger multiple families that thought they were getting a tot lot)
    2. Build it in original location (anger home owners that failed to notice the tot lot on original plans)
    3. Build it in new location (anger Merlin, who purchased a home with the expectation not having a tot lot)

    I would think that VM is interested selling the remaining homes in the SW. We are lucky that they have not packed up and moved on (after that, forget it, we will never see a tot lot). I think it would be in their best interests to follow through with the original plans or come up with a new one that does not include total abandonment. Perhaps potential future buyers should be made aware of the deviations that have happened and they might think twice before purchasing.

    It could get messy if homeowners are prepared to file injunctions or other equitable remedies.

    I will be at the meeting to voice my opinion Tuesday at 5:30pm at the Nature Center. Please join me if you wish to support a tot lot in one of the proposed locations.
     
  13. Merlin

    Merlin New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    We will be there. For the record, we are not the only ones who would be angered by option #3 - we are going to try to touch base with the other folks that share our sentiments and let them know that this will be a topic of discussion on Tuesday - I'm not sure they frequent these forums.
     
  14. vacliff

    vacliff "You shouldn't say that."

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Likes Received:
    344
    Yes they are. That's why they plan to build the Tot Lot amenities slated for the original tot lot on a new tot lot that will be built across Claiborne Pkwy where they are still selling new homes.
    Crazy like a fox?
     
  15. Wahoowa

    Wahoowa New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have been reading this thread since it started, but have been hesitant to post. People feel very passionately about this issue and I’ve seen how nasty folks can be when others don’t share their opinions. Having said that, I now feel the need to share our perspective…

    I am one of the homeowners affected by the original tot lot location. We saw a site plan before we bought this lot, and I can assure you that it did not contain a tot lot. There were four houses in a row (on Stone Hollow) that were most affected by the original tot lot, one of which was bought by a husband/wife real estate agent team, and none of us ever saw a tot lot on any plan. We bought our lot, for which we also paid a lot premium, specifically for the common area behind it. We asked before we bought it if anything was ever planned for the common area and were told that a path might go in at some point, and we were fine with that. If we had known about a tot lot within 10 feet of our lot line, we most definitely would not have bought this lot. The first that we knew of the tot lot was when we received the original notification from Broadlands Associates, dated April 11, 2006. We were still talking with Van Metre and Broadlands Associates about the tot lot when we were told by Pat Leader that they were moving it because they had decided that the original location was too small.
     
  16. Merlin

    Merlin New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wahoowa - Wahoowa from a fellow Hoo...

    I understand your hesitancy. I do think that it's best that everyone put all their information and perspectives on the table in order for us to work as a community - particularly when it feels like Van Metre seems to make a lot of decisions without community input and communicates different things to different people for their convenience.

    I will say that one of the very first brochures we ever picked up from the sales center during our buying process clearly depicts "Red Bud Hill" as one of the "Kids Favorite Places" that was "Coming Soon"....and it seems to be located down towards the Ridgeway end of Stone Hollow. I still have it. I am fairly certain we saw it depicted in other documents, but I will have to verify that with my other half.

    Of course the map in the brochure also says "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, depictions or maps". That's the statement where VM does their CYA.

    I know it is difficult to hang our hats on any verbal conversations with the sales staff, but based on what you say, it seems like we were ALL told there would be nothing behind our homes, while also ALL shelling out $$ for supposed undisturbed space. And that is just so fundamentally wrong in my book.

    What is your desired outcome at this point? Will you be attending the meeting on Tuesday?
     
  17. Wahoowa

    Wahoowa New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Merlin-
    I sent you a PM.
     
  18. Neighbor

    Neighbor Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2004
    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    6
    Here are scans of it with the CYA that Merlin mentions. Sorry for the poor scans. The forum would not accept high resolution, but "Red Bud Hill" is in the lower left along side the path that they constructed. I will contact Loudoun County this week to find out if VM applied for any permits, zoning, or development for this tot lot. If so, it should be on a master plan and/or plat. Perhaps it would have the best graphic and information on a specific location. People clearly knew about the path and playground when the houses were under construction. Matter of fact there was discussion among the neighbors when the house burned down. I think the tot lot was supposed to be somewhere behind it.
     

    Attached Files:

  19. Wahoowa

    Wahoowa New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for posting that, Neighbor. We haven't seen that plan before. We actually live close to Stonestile and on that plan, the tot lot appears to be closer to Cloverleaf Court. I understand it is hard to determine since no specific lots are reflected, but that was my first reaction to seeing the location on that plan.

    I understand that there are people who bought their houses with the expectation of a tot lot in that common area. All I can say is that we bought our house with the expectation that there would not be a tot lot behind it.
     
  20. Neighbor

    Neighbor Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2004
    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    6
    I am not sure that any headway was made tonight. For the most part, I got the answers that I expected. All plans for a tot lot were abandoned, which is what I obviously knew going into the meeting.

    For those who could not make it, two home owners spoke against it (adjacent property owners), and two spoke in favor (non adjacent property owners). The HOA had nothing to say at all. The person representing the Developer, Mark Holliday, confirmed that both plans were abandoned by the Developer.

    Here is what I did learn; There are two types of parks, active and passive (well 3 if you include natural..not at issue here). According to the Developer, there will be no active parks on the Ridgeway side of Southern Walk. Matter of fact, he stated that the new development on the other side of Claiborne will only get a picnic table. Therefore the closest tot lot (active park) will be next to the swimming pool. The Developer claimed that this satisfies the County guidelines. This is yet to be determined. From my brief research, it appears that the guidelines really refer to the Master Plan that is submitted to the County.

    The Developer cleared the land at the corner of Stone Hollow and Claiborne, so I see no impediment to placing the tot lot in this location. The land along the Highview/Stone Hollow path may have a zoning impediment (yet to be determined). The Developer may be able to downsize the tot lot along the easement. Nonetheless, the other location should have no zoning issues. Actually it is already cleared and a bridge to nowhere was built by the Developer. Mark Holiday hinted that he may remove the bridge which seems to go against the grain of the Loudon County Suburban Policy Area for Residential Developments.

    My initial impression is that the Developer is content with providing the bare minimum. Of course, they don’t enjoy spending additional funds, bring in the heavy equipment, and labor to complete what was advertised. Hence the arbitrary decision making process.

    If this truly is their position that there will not be an active tot lot within reasonable walking distance as originally planned then we should look into alternate remedies.

    I am in the process of drafting a formal letter to the Developer, Van Metre, the HOA. If desired, I can CC the community. This would go to all homes that would be within reasonable walking distance of the proposed tot lot. I am also contacting a colleague at my firm who is an expert in property law. Perhaps he can shed some light on the remedies.

    If there are enough supporters, then I believe that we can still persuade the Developer, as a class, to deliver what they advertised. This could be a long process, and at this point I will start with a formal letter and will request a response.

    If you wish to support the effort to have the Developer deliver the active play area that was advertised, please email me privately at DAVELEFC AT AOL DOT COM
     

Share This Page