Monday, October 20, 2003

 

Whitaker Woods HOA

 

Lambdin Development

PO Box 676

Belair, MD 21014

 

Att’n: James Lambdin, Deanne May

 

RE:  Association Covenant and Transition issues

 

Dear James, Deanne:

 

This correspondence is intended to address several outstanding issues regarding association covenants and bi laws and confirm verbal correspondence regarding these issues. To present facts pertaining to pre established and legally filed documents (HOA covenant), and the understanding, in written format, affiliated with decisions made by Lambdin Development during their tenure as association board representatives to issue approved changes to these documents addressing challenges that have resulted from these decisions. And finally to clearly identify direction and responsibility for resolution of any and all outstanding issues as noted in the enclosed correspondence.

 

Following are the issues that will be addressed in this correspondence:

 

Addressing the fence location issue:

Approval was given by Lambdin Development for the location of a fence to the front of a home (Article VI Section 11). The fence in question was per approval however the type of fence used (picket style) was not addressed in the process nor approved. After installation of the fence this “as built” condition was never questioned by Lambdin Development, and remains un-challenged by Lambdin Development. Per the article and section noted above, this is un-acceptable to covenant bi-laws then and now. It is required that Lambdin Development address this in written format declaring specific reasoning for acceptance of this change and then follow up the process and bring conclusion to the style of fence used (which was not approved); (Article XII, Section 1 and Article XII, Section 3). No notice of changes was ever issued or noted and the present board has no correspondence to support these decisions. The newly elected Architectural Review Committee (ARC) has petitioned the style of fence and is challenging acceptance of it.

 

 

 

Fence Style and Type:

Further addressing fence issues; the style of fence is of concern. Other than the fence style mentioned above going un-challenged, approval was also given for some homeowners to have vinyl picket style fencing or in general fencing other that specified in Article VI Section 11 of the covenant. This has grandfathered numerous challenges regarding fences. Pre-approval by Lambdin serves potentially for others to follow suit and question why if approval is not given. The approval for this style of fence was authored by Lambdin Development. Just cause and reasoning for the change to covenant is warranted. The support is needed on the part of Lambdin to disallow any such future attempts to use this style of fence; the character and integrity of HOA values are being regarded.

 

Mailboxes:

Next on the list is mailboxes. Article VI Section 13 is very ambiguous in the statements regarding the uniform character of mailboxes. There is also a subsequent rumor that a supplement to the covenant was issued stating all mailboxes were to be white. In either case nothing supports brick fabrication. Again special approval was given to some homeowners to include brick enclosures on their property. A foundation for Lambdin’s decision is required as to the just cause and reasoning behind allowing these alterations to the covenant documents. This too, has left the door open for residents to question why? when turned down for the same applications.

 

Road Surfaces:

It appears as though the stressed and severely separated asphalt road conditions which were apparent in several locations through out the neighborhood (most noticeable on Whitaker Avenue) have been addressed and reconciled. The question remains, and written correspondence required, as to how future concerns regarding all warranted road conditions will be regarded. What is the turnover point of responsibility to the county and what documentation must be represented to hold all parties accountable?

 

Signage:

Signage at the entry needs to be addressed. Article VI Section 3 clearly defines the acceptable nature of signage in the development. The promotional signage located at the entry must be removed. Lambdin Development needs to address this issue with the builders and other associates and become compliant with this governing principle.

 

Ponds, Landscape, Common Areas:

The last three classifications can be addressed as one package. The newly elected board has been challenged with un-resolved and carry over issues in each of these stated classifications. Ponds are un-finished; common areas have been left un-usable, not cleared of contractor debris level, and complete; landscape issues are un-resolved. The following list is intended to outline a portion of the concerns however is not intended to include all, nor any unforeseeable future development:

 

The response from Lambdin must be directed at the issues. Just cause and reasoning to support decisions made by Lambdin Development to approve requested changes to covenant bi-laws set in place to govern and control the integrity of the home owners within the Whitaker Woods Development is required. It is viewed that these exceptions to covenant bi-laws were made to promote the sale of homes and for self interest. Tour clarifications to resolve all the issues noted within this correspondence will support all future action on the present association elected board to address and resolve clearly and with integrity, all future requests for improvements to the properties. It is expected that the previous board resolve completely, and in writing, to the satisfaction of the present acting HOA board of directors, all outstanding issues instituted and approved by that board which are not in compliance with the filed document constituting the Homeowners Covenants of the Association of Whitaker Woods.

 

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Board of Directors,

Whitaker Wood Homeowners Association

 

Cc:       Board members

File