SGSTA board of directors meeting
November 28, 2007
In attendance: Art Carter (president), Steve Edgar (treasurer), Alex Witze (secretary), Debbie Edgerly
Location: #7519 (Witze’s house)
Art called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm.
The minutes for the prior meeting were read and approved.
Steve provided a treasurer’s update. Not all expense receipts have been received for the work on the mailboxes, and he requested that all outstanding receipts be submitted as soon as possible. When dues notifications go out for the first quarter of 2008, Steve will include a note to the effect that they are due upon receipt and that late fees of 6 percent per annum may be assessed as specified in the bylaws and discussed at the last BOD meeting. The association continues to be in the red for the year, primarily due to the expense of hiring the appraiser Hal Gearhart but also for other expenses such as the mailbox repairs.
Alex provided an update on the ICC. As discussed at the previous meeting she is in discussions with a lawyer who deals with eminent domain issues about representing SGSTA at the board of property review (which has not yet been rescheduled). She has also talked with the State Highway Administration appraiser who signed off on the state appraisal done on our property. In short, the SHA told her that we should be happy with the $102,000 evaluation as it was more generous than many other properties got.
There was some discussion of the surveys of the interiors of residences that the state is coordinating. Steve has already conducted his with a representative from the seismic company; others have not heard back yet regarding scheduling.
Debbie read the EPB update provided by Melissa. A second walk-around was performed on Nov. 10 to inspect all the homes. There were six homes that had still not complied with the findings from the first walk-around. Letters and pictures were mailed via certified mail to the owners and renters in those cases. In addition, five residents received letters regarding additional violations noted during the spot check. The date for compliance for all fixes is March 15, 2008.
Melissa has been talking to other townhome associations in Derwood regarding other potential landscaping companies. Some that have been recommended are Chapel Valley Landscaping and McFall & Berry Landscape Management. The Capitol contract is up in December each year and so it was decided to have presentations in the September time frame for 2008, as there is not time left this year to consider other contracts.
Steve has spoken with Bart of Capitol Landscaping regarding their service. There has been one leaf pickup this year, and fewer mows than usual. Steve will look into trying to get credit for the unused two leaf pickups, and any credit for the unused mows. Debbie mentioned issues surrounding tree trimming in the neighborhood; there are both small jobs such as dangling branches, and major prunings, which are covered under different parts of the Capitol contract. Such trimmings need to be spaced out properly with Capitol or else done through another tree-trimming services in order to save money, she recommended.
The board next discussed parking proposals. Alex re-proposed the plan she brought up at the last BOD meeting. This would mean giving every unit two hangtags to be placed in their vehicles. The hangtags would need to be displayed at all times, and any vehicle parked on Weatherby Dr. without a hangtag would be towed. Signs to this effect would be posted at the entrance to the community and at the end of the cul-de-sac. Towing would be enforced by an independent towing company such as Stronghold Towing; there would be no charge to the community other than the cost of the signs ($30 each) and hangtags. There was discussion as to whether this should be enforced 24/7 or only during the evening hours. Some residents have complained that parking is tight during the day as well as in the evening.
Art put forth an alternative proposal, in which each unit would be issued one visitor pass. The first vehicle belonging to the unit would be parked in the unit’s reserved spot, and the visitor pass would have to be displayed for any vehicle in an unreserved spot. Any vehicle parked in an unreserved spot without a visitor pass would be towed. The cars parked in the reserved spots would be described in a vehicle registration database with information on the owner’s name, make and model of the car. In addition, Art proposed allocating the final two parking spaces (the two left over after 31 units get 2 spaces each – there are 64 spaces total in the lot) to the most senior resident owners in the neighborhood.
Discussion ensued. Alex noted that a towing company would be unable to discriminate between reserved and unreserved parking spaces (since the numbers are painted only on the curb in front of each space) and therefore would be unable to tell which cars they ought to be towing. It was mentioned that perhaps there should be one ‘reserved’ hangtag and one ‘visitor’ hangtag for each unit instead. Alex is personally unsure why this is superior to having two hangtags with neither marked as ‘reserved’ or ‘visitor’. It is expected that residents will continue to informally monitor whether anyone is parked in their unit’s reserved space, and if a car is there that is not supposed to be there, either leave a note or go find the owner to make them move out of the reserved space.
The parking discussion did not result in any vote being taken, but a decision was made to table the vote until the next BOD meeting or until the annual neighborhood meeting. In the meantime Debbie noted that parking problems continue, with multiple units parking far more than two cars per unit. Alex will draft up letters to warn the regular offenders again and give them to Art to sign.
The next BOD meeting will be January 30.
The neighborhood annual meeting was scheduled for Sunday evening, Feb. 10, at a location to be determined.
The meeting was adjourned.
Monday, December 03, 2007
Sunday, November 25, 2007
ICC update
Just to update everyone: every single response I received regarding the question of hiring a lawyer for our ICC issue (13 households out of 31) was in favor of hiring a lawyer on contingency. I am now pursuing this actively.
Alex
Alex
Minutes from Oct 24 BOD meeting
SGSTA board of directors meeting
October 24, 2007
In attendance: Art Carter (president), Steve Edgar (treasurer and host), Alex Witze (secretary), Debbie Edgerly, Cheryl Day, Gregg and Melissa Price, Jean Smith
Art opened the meeting at 6:40 pm. The meetings from the prior meeting of Aug. 22 were read and approved. Art noted that the EPB is scheduled to do its walkthrough of properties, to check that the improvements requested in the spring, have been made. A rain date has not yet been set in case it is raining Saturday.
Melissa provided an EPB update. Those residents who have not complied with requests to comply with the bylaws will receive a letter indicating they have 30 additional days to comply. The board of directors will also sign off on these letters. There was some discussion of what to do if people did not comply by then. It was suggested that residents who are still not in compliance be required to check regularly with the EPB updating them as to the reasons why the work has not yet been performed (difficulty locating a contractor, etc). There was some discussion of whether residents would want to share a fence repair contractor; Debbie mentioned this had been brought before the board, in approximately 2000, and the proposal was rejected by homeowners at the time. In other news, Melissa indicated that the EPB has discussed installing solar-powered lights to illuminate walkways in the neighborhood in winter.
Steve provided a treasurer’s update. All third quarter dues have been paid, some quite late. It was noted that the bylaws permit a late fee charge of 6 percent per year, if the payments come in more than 30 days after notification. The current balance in our reserve account is $16,744. In addition, Steve has been compiling the vehicle database and has more than a 90 percent response rate.
Art instigated a discussion of Capitol Landscaping and their service this year. It was generally agreed that they have not provided particularly good service. Art and Steve will check on the number of mows performed this year and make sure they have done all they have contracted for. The EPB may look into possible other contractors although we have another year left on our contract with Capitol.
Alex provided an ICC update. All the homes that responded to the inquiry about whether to hire a lawyer on contingency said yes. Alex will move forward with trying to get a lawyer to get more money.
Alex then put forth a parking proposal similar to the one proposed by Elle Jauffret two years ago. Each unit would get two hangtags, parking stickers, or a combination of both. The lot would be continually patrolled by a towing company (presumably Stronghold Towing, which does this for the townhouse unit up on Epsilon) and any vehicle not displaying a hangtag or sticker would be towed. There would be no charge to the neighborhood other than putting up two signs (at roughly $30 each) and making up the hangtags. Debbie questioned whether this should be enforced 24 hours a day or only at nighttime. It was decided to vote on this at the next BOD meeting.
Art mentioned that he has a relative in Oregon who could address the question of whether the HOA should hire a CPA to do taxes once we get money from the state regarding the ICC. He will continue to pursue this although we will likely not accept any money from the state prior to the end of the year.
The next meeting will be at 6:30 pm on Nov. 28 at Alex’s house, #7519.
October 24, 2007
In attendance: Art Carter (president), Steve Edgar (treasurer and host), Alex Witze (secretary), Debbie Edgerly, Cheryl Day, Gregg and Melissa Price, Jean Smith
Art opened the meeting at 6:40 pm. The meetings from the prior meeting of Aug. 22 were read and approved. Art noted that the EPB is scheduled to do its walkthrough of properties, to check that the improvements requested in the spring, have been made. A rain date has not yet been set in case it is raining Saturday.
Melissa provided an EPB update. Those residents who have not complied with requests to comply with the bylaws will receive a letter indicating they have 30 additional days to comply. The board of directors will also sign off on these letters. There was some discussion of what to do if people did not comply by then. It was suggested that residents who are still not in compliance be required to check regularly with the EPB updating them as to the reasons why the work has not yet been performed (difficulty locating a contractor, etc). There was some discussion of whether residents would want to share a fence repair contractor; Debbie mentioned this had been brought before the board, in approximately 2000, and the proposal was rejected by homeowners at the time. In other news, Melissa indicated that the EPB has discussed installing solar-powered lights to illuminate walkways in the neighborhood in winter.
Steve provided a treasurer’s update. All third quarter dues have been paid, some quite late. It was noted that the bylaws permit a late fee charge of 6 percent per year, if the payments come in more than 30 days after notification. The current balance in our reserve account is $16,744. In addition, Steve has been compiling the vehicle database and has more than a 90 percent response rate.
Art instigated a discussion of Capitol Landscaping and their service this year. It was generally agreed that they have not provided particularly good service. Art and Steve will check on the number of mows performed this year and make sure they have done all they have contracted for. The EPB may look into possible other contractors although we have another year left on our contract with Capitol.
Alex provided an ICC update. All the homes that responded to the inquiry about whether to hire a lawyer on contingency said yes. Alex will move forward with trying to get a lawyer to get more money.
Alex then put forth a parking proposal similar to the one proposed by Elle Jauffret two years ago. Each unit would get two hangtags, parking stickers, or a combination of both. The lot would be continually patrolled by a towing company (presumably Stronghold Towing, which does this for the townhouse unit up on Epsilon) and any vehicle not displaying a hangtag or sticker would be towed. There would be no charge to the neighborhood other than putting up two signs (at roughly $30 each) and making up the hangtags. Debbie questioned whether this should be enforced 24 hours a day or only at nighttime. It was decided to vote on this at the next BOD meeting.
Art mentioned that he has a relative in Oregon who could address the question of whether the HOA should hire a CPA to do taxes once we get money from the state regarding the ICC. He will continue to pursue this although we will likely not accept any money from the state prior to the end of the year.
The next meeting will be at 6:30 pm on Nov. 28 at Alex’s house, #7519.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
ICC: do we hire a lawyer?
All:
I have received a number of questions regarding the latest ICC update. I'm not sure if I can answer them satisfactorily, but I will try.
First, to sum up: The HOA in May hired an appraiser, Hal Gearhart, to provide a report summarizing our case that we should receive additional monies (on the order of $1 million) to compensate for an expected drop in property value and quality of life once the road is constructed. A week and a half ago the state denied this counteroffer.
I have not yet gone back to the state with a second counteroffer and further arguments, which I intend to do shortly. However I have come to the opinion over the past couple of months, in speaking with many other neighbors who are subject to ICC takings, that we stand a better chance of getting more money if we hire a lawyer. I have not done this up until now because of cost; I was hoping that, armed with the Gearhart report, I myself could win the battle. I have since come to believe it's not as simple as that.
Last week I spoke with another community organizer who claims he knows lawyers who will take such a case on contingency - that is, they would represent us for no fee but take a substantial chunk (likely one-third) of any additional monies won from the state. A second option remains hiring a lawyer out of pocket; as mentioned back in May to many of you, this would cost roughly $300 an hour and there is no way of estimating how many hours would be required to do the job. Other communities who have hired lawyers have readily spend far in excess of $10,000 in arguing their cases. There is no way of estimating at this point in time how much it would cost us.
Our reserve savings balance is currently $16,700. We do have $102,000 coming from the state - this amount is currently held in our name by the county, and we have not withdrawn the money and placed it into our own account for fear that action might influence our negotiations for more money. (On further research I have come to think that that might not be the case, and I may recommend to the board that we go ahead and take the first $102,000, however.) So in short, we do have some money, but the question is how much of the $102,000 do we want to gamble on getting more?
The question before us now is whether we want to involve a lawyer. Based on discussions with community members in May, it was generally felt that we would initially spend a relatively small amount ($2,000) on an appraiser's report and see if that would get us what we need. I believe the answer to that question is no. The appraiser's report has been of some use and will continue to be of use in further negotiations, but it alone will not do it for us.
I would now like to know neighbors' opinions as to whether we should
1 - hire a lawyer on contingency, meaning no money out of pocket but a big chunk lost to commission if we win
2 - hire a lawyer out of pocket
3 - not hire a lawyer but continue to argue the case ourselves
Please let me know your thoughts by the evening of Tuesday, Oct. 23, if possible. Email to awitze@gmail.com is the best way. The board of directors has its regularly scheduled meeting this Wednesday, Oct. 24, at 6:30 pm at Steve Edgar's house (7518) if anyone would like to attend. There are other items on the agenda other than the ICC, but it will certainly be discussed so if anyone wants to come in person please do so.
Also note that the board of property review hearing, which had been scheduled for Oct. 18, has been rescheduled for an undetermined date in the future. This is the board hearing at which a judge and panel of citizens rules how much we should get from the state. I asked for an extension (the second time I have done so) so that we could discuss whether we wanted to involve a lawyer in our negotiations.
Also, if you know anyone who wants to be on this email list, please have them contact me directly and I can add them.
Thanks
Alex
awitze@gmail.com
301-466-7760
I have received a number of questions regarding the latest ICC update. I'm not sure if I can answer them satisfactorily, but I will try.
First, to sum up: The HOA in May hired an appraiser, Hal Gearhart, to provide a report summarizing our case that we should receive additional monies (on the order of $1 million) to compensate for an expected drop in property value and quality of life once the road is constructed. A week and a half ago the state denied this counteroffer.
I have not yet gone back to the state with a second counteroffer and further arguments, which I intend to do shortly. However I have come to the opinion over the past couple of months, in speaking with many other neighbors who are subject to ICC takings, that we stand a better chance of getting more money if we hire a lawyer. I have not done this up until now because of cost; I was hoping that, armed with the Gearhart report, I myself could win the battle. I have since come to believe it's not as simple as that.
Last week I spoke with another community organizer who claims he knows lawyers who will take such a case on contingency - that is, they would represent us for no fee but take a substantial chunk (likely one-third) of any additional monies won from the state. A second option remains hiring a lawyer out of pocket; as mentioned back in May to many of you, this would cost roughly $300 an hour and there is no way of estimating how many hours would be required to do the job. Other communities who have hired lawyers have readily spend far in excess of $10,000 in arguing their cases. There is no way of estimating at this point in time how much it would cost us.
Our reserve savings balance is currently $16,700. We do have $102,000 coming from the state - this amount is currently held in our name by the county, and we have not withdrawn the money and placed it into our own account for fear that action might influence our negotiations for more money. (On further research I have come to think that that might not be the case, and I may recommend to the board that we go ahead and take the first $102,000, however.) So in short, we do have some money, but the question is how much of the $102,000 do we want to gamble on getting more?
The question before us now is whether we want to involve a lawyer. Based on discussions with community members in May, it was generally felt that we would initially spend a relatively small amount ($2,000) on an appraiser's report and see if that would get us what we need. I believe the answer to that question is no. The appraiser's report has been of some use and will continue to be of use in further negotiations, but it alone will not do it for us.
I would now like to know neighbors' opinions as to whether we should
1 - hire a lawyer on contingency, meaning no money out of pocket but a big chunk lost to commission if we win
2 - hire a lawyer out of pocket
3 - not hire a lawyer but continue to argue the case ourselves
Please let me know your thoughts by the evening of Tuesday, Oct. 23, if possible. Email to awitze@gmail.com is the best way. The board of directors has its regularly scheduled meeting this Wednesday, Oct. 24, at 6:30 pm at Steve Edgar's house (7518) if anyone would like to attend. There are other items on the agenda other than the ICC, but it will certainly be discussed so if anyone wants to come in person please do so.
Also note that the board of property review hearing, which had been scheduled for Oct. 18, has been rescheduled for an undetermined date in the future. This is the board hearing at which a judge and panel of citizens rules how much we should get from the state. I asked for an extension (the second time I have done so) so that we could discuss whether we wanted to involve a lawyer in our negotiations.
Also, if you know anyone who wants to be on this email list, please have them contact me directly and I can add them.
Thanks
Alex
awitze@gmail.com
301-466-7760
Sunday, October 14, 2007
ICC: Meet MONDAY Oct. 15 please
Those interested should please come to my house (7519) on Monday, Oct. 15 at 8 pm to discuss the ICC. (Not Tuesday as previously advertised.) Over the weekend it has come to my attention that construction could begin on Tuesday in our neighborhood, and I think it best we meet Monday.
Thanks
Alex
Thanks
Alex
Friday, October 12, 2007
ICC: response from the state
All:
Today I received the following note from Alvis Dickerson of the State Highway Administration. I will be arguing our case for more money at the board of property review on Oct. 18. If you have any input into the process, please contact me (awitze@gmail.com) by 7 pm on Wednesday Oct. 17. Thanks.
---
Ms. Witze,
The counteroffer appraisal from Mr. Gearhart has been reviewed by the
State's Review Appraiser. His conclusion is that Mr. Gearhart failed to
appraise and give a value for the 3,246 s.f. actually being purchased by
the State; therefore, the State's believes Mr. Lamb's appraisal is fair
just compensation.
Just as a reminder, the Board of Property Review hearing will be held on
Thursday, October 18th at 10:00 a.m. The board members will meet at 9:00
a.m. at the property site.
Today I received the following note from Alvis Dickerson of the State Highway Administration. I will be arguing our case for more money at the board of property review on Oct. 18. If you have any input into the process, please contact me (awitze@gmail.com) by 7 pm on Wednesday Oct. 17. Thanks.
---
Ms. Witze,
The counteroffer appraisal from Mr. Gearhart has been reviewed by the
State's Review Appraiser. His conclusion is that Mr. Gearhart failed to
appraise and give a value for the 3,246 s.f. actually being purchased by
the State; therefore, the State's believes Mr. Lamb's appraisal is fair
just compensation.
Just as a reminder, the Board of Property Review hearing will be held on
Thursday, October 18th at 10:00 a.m. The board members will meet at 9:00
a.m. at the property site.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Minutes of Aug. 22 board of directors' meeting
SGSTA board of directors meeting
August 22, 2007
In attendance: Art Carter (president), Steve Edgar (treasurer), Alex Witze (secretary)
7 p.m. at #7519 (Witze’s house)
Art opened the meeting by noting that much of the work requested by the environmental protection board following its walk-through this summer has already been performed. He requested that we note this in the newsletter; Alex will do so. She is behind on the next newsletter.
Steve updated everyone on the new database for vehicle registrations. It lists the cars (make, model and tag number) for each unit in the neighborhood. Most people who have paid their dues have responded with the relevant information, but some who are delinquent on their dues, and also a number of the rental units, have not yet responded. Steve will continue to pursue to get this information from everyone. He also mentioned that we should renew discussions with a towing company so that we can put up a sign regarding parking restrictions and have a contract with them to tow people away who are violating the contract (unregistered vehicles and so on). This will be discussed further at the next board meeting. The treasury remains more in the red than in the black due to people who have not paid their dues.
The board discussed a possible date for a community clean-up day and potential neighborhood picnic. Sept. 22 was chosen, and the environmental protection board will get involved with the planning.
The rest of the meeting was given over to discussion of the appraisal from Hal Gearhart, who is helping us put together a case to ask the state for more money regarding the ICC. Once the final document is done Alex will provide a copy to every SGSTA member and also provide it to the state as documentation for asking for more money. The next step, if we and the state are not able to reach an agreement, is to proceed to the rescheduled board of property review hearing which will likely be in October.
Art raised the issue of when we should take the first $102,000 from the county clerk’s office. It was generally agreed that this should be withdrawn shortly although it might give us a bit more leverage to have not accepted it while we continue to negotiate.
A few issues regarding ICC construction were brought up. Apparently they opened up a drainage pipe that contains a lot of trash, which comes out every time it rains. They have however filled in the boreholes mentioned earlier.
The next board meeting will be Sept. 26 at Steve’s house. Members of the EPB will be invited.
August 22, 2007
In attendance: Art Carter (president), Steve Edgar (treasurer), Alex Witze (secretary)
7 p.m. at #7519 (Witze’s house)
Art opened the meeting by noting that much of the work requested by the environmental protection board following its walk-through this summer has already been performed. He requested that we note this in the newsletter; Alex will do so. She is behind on the next newsletter.
Steve updated everyone on the new database for vehicle registrations. It lists the cars (make, model and tag number) for each unit in the neighborhood. Most people who have paid their dues have responded with the relevant information, but some who are delinquent on their dues, and also a number of the rental units, have not yet responded. Steve will continue to pursue to get this information from everyone. He also mentioned that we should renew discussions with a towing company so that we can put up a sign regarding parking restrictions and have a contract with them to tow people away who are violating the contract (unregistered vehicles and so on). This will be discussed further at the next board meeting. The treasury remains more in the red than in the black due to people who have not paid their dues.
The board discussed a possible date for a community clean-up day and potential neighborhood picnic. Sept. 22 was chosen, and the environmental protection board will get involved with the planning.
The rest of the meeting was given over to discussion of the appraisal from Hal Gearhart, who is helping us put together a case to ask the state for more money regarding the ICC. Once the final document is done Alex will provide a copy to every SGSTA member and also provide it to the state as documentation for asking for more money. The next step, if we and the state are not able to reach an agreement, is to proceed to the rescheduled board of property review hearing which will likely be in October.
Art raised the issue of when we should take the first $102,000 from the county clerk’s office. It was generally agreed that this should be withdrawn shortly although it might give us a bit more leverage to have not accepted it while we continue to negotiate.
A few issues regarding ICC construction were brought up. Apparently they opened up a drainage pipe that contains a lot of trash, which comes out every time it rains. They have however filled in the boreholes mentioned earlier.
The next board meeting will be Sept. 26 at Steve’s house. Members of the EPB will be invited.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
ICC update, sort of
Hang in there, everyone. Hal Gearhart, the appraiser who is helping us draw up a counteroffer to the state, keeps saying he is nearly done with his report. As soon as he gives it to us I will present it to the state with a case for more money.
A tentative date of Oct. 31 has been set for the board of property review hearing at which it would be formally decided how much compensation we will receive, if we and the state are not able to agree on an amount before then.
A tentative date of Oct. 31 has been set for the board of property review hearing at which it would be formally decided how much compensation we will receive, if we and the state are not able to agree on an amount before then.
Monday, July 09, 2007
I received a call today from Odessa Phillip of the ICC project office. The company that won the contract to build the road will be in our area doing surveying and technical work starting in the next couple of days. Their work will be primarily limited to weekdays, though if there are rain delays they may have to work the occasional Saturday. Work involving loud noises is supposed to be limited to 'reasonable' hours, and Odessa is supposed to be getting to me on what constitutes reasonable.
Just wanted you all to know to expect this.
Just wanted you all to know to expect this.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
ICC update
Please note that the board of property review hearing that was scheduled for June 21 has been postponed as we are still waiting for our appraiser to provide us with a number we can use as a counteroffer to the state's offer for our land. The appraiser's report is expected by the end of June, at which point we will present that number to the state and see if they take it or not.
Monday, May 14, 2007
ICC: June 21 hearing
The state has set a date of June 21 for the board of property review hearing, which is the time when a judge decides how much compensation we will receive for our property. SGSTA has retained an appraiser, Hal Gearhart, who has experience with other ICC properties to help draw up a counteroffer. His report is expected by the end of May and we can then present that to the state. If it is unacceptable to the state we will then proceed to the June 21 hearing. That will be the final word on the matter although there is a 30-day appeal period if we are unhappy with the decision.
Minutes from May 8 ICC meeting
Minutes of Shady Grove Station Townhouse Association meeting with representatives from the state regarding the InterCounty Connector
May 8, 2007
7 p.m. at #7519 (Alex Witze’s house)
SGSTA members in attendance: Alex Witze (7519), Jean and Greg Smith (7521), Melissa and Greg Price (7527), Pete Patellis (7506), Ottie Gates (7505), Art and Annette Carter (7522), William Yu (7509), Steve Edgar (7518), Riva Bendarenko (7526), Cheryl Day (7513), Tavi and Shay Alvarez (7532), Lynne McConnell (7501), Debbie Edgerly (7529), Tim Tang (7414). Notes by Witze.
State representatives in attendance:
Odessa Phillip, community liaison for Contract A, State Highway Administration
Alvis Dickerson, real property specialist, State Highway Administration
Eric Mellor, contract/design manager, Contract A
Dennis McMahon, construction manager, Contract A
Phillip kicked off the meeting with an overview of her role in the project. She is the liaison, or point person between the communities affected by the ICC and the design and construction team. Any immediate concerns during construction, such as noise from construction, vehicle access, and the like, should go to Phillip. She noted it would be best if the community could designate a point person (e.g. Witze) to coordinate comments so that she is not receiving phone calls from multiple people about the same concern. Phillip will leave business cards with community members at the end of the meeting.
Mellor gave a run-down as to the status of the road. Exact details are not yet set as it is a ‘design-build’ project and there are still some details that could change. The ICC will cross over Shady Grove Road at an elevation of approximately 25 feet. It will be toll, and three lanes in each direction. West of Mill Run (i.e. just beyond our community) auxiliary lanes will start for people exiting onto I-370. Mellor estimated that the highway would be roughly 30 feet above ground level behind our community, with some give or take still possible (5 feet up or down) depending on what the design-builders do. The team, known as InterCounty Constructors, won the $478.8 million bid and will be completing the designs. The state has provided specifications for things such as landscaping and noise barriers, and the builders will need to abide by those decisions.
Lighting: The ICC itself will not be lit but there will be partial lighting at the interchange, such as where it meets I-370. Also overhead signs will be lit, for instance exit signs. The lighting will have cutoff fixtures and be low level. Mellor said he does not expect lighting more than perhaps a lit directional sign in our community.
Toll gantry: somewhere between I-370 and Route 97 (Georgia Ave.) there will be an overhead toll gantry to read EZPass tags. The location will be proposed by the design-builder. Phillip said the communities that would be affected would be consulted at that time. Mellor noted it would likely be in an area where the road is at ground level, not elevated like it is behind our community.
What next: Details for the design should be finalized in the May/June time frame. There may be some additional borings in our neighborhood. Notice to proceed with further construction is expected in the fall. The construction duration for Contract A is 39 months, which is not expected to be continual construction in our neighborhood, but perhaps intermittent. Mellor is in charge of design oversight for all of Contract A.
Blasting: they expect to do some of this. McMahon said that the design builders anticipate doing hundreds of preconstruction surveys to determine if blasting will damage the foundations or otherwise for nearby homes. Some of these may take place in our area.
Noise barriers: Mellor said our area qualifies by state definitions for a noise barrier – however the design builder will re-do the noise analysis to see if we qualify. Mellor said we likely would. They would then have another meeting with residences to be immediately benefited by the noise wall (i.e. Row 1 of our townhomes) and if 75 percnet of those residents say they want the wall, the state is obligated to build it. The plan would be to build the noise barrier as early as possible to help protect from construction noise. Typical height of a sound wall is 16-24 feet.
Other impacts: It will be roughly 100 feet from the line of disturbance (the edge of our property line that they took) to the highway. Construction crews will not be able to access via Berclair or other community roads. Rodents are sometimes a problem and Mellor said they are difficult to control – we should keep an eye out for this. Re other wildlife, the state will have a fence to restrict deer and relocate species such as box turtles. Regarding plumbing, Mellor said it should not affect water quality, but Pete noted that there is poor drainage in that area. Regarding health impacts, Greg noted that there are ongoing lawsuits regarding the environmental impacts of particulate matters, which Mellor did not dispute. It is not clear for the timeframe on which these lawsuits will be decided.
The meeting ended around 8:15 p.m.
N
May 8, 2007
7 p.m. at #7519 (Alex Witze’s house)
SGSTA members in attendance: Alex Witze (7519), Jean and Greg Smith (7521), Melissa and Greg Price (7527), Pete Patellis (7506), Ottie Gates (7505), Art and Annette Carter (7522), William Yu (7509), Steve Edgar (7518), Riva Bendarenko (7526), Cheryl Day (7513), Tavi and Shay Alvarez (7532), Lynne McConnell (7501), Debbie Edgerly (7529), Tim Tang (7414). Notes by Witze.
State representatives in attendance:
Odessa Phillip, community liaison for Contract A, State Highway Administration
Alvis Dickerson, real property specialist, State Highway Administration
Eric Mellor, contract/design manager, Contract A
Dennis McMahon, construction manager, Contract A
Phillip kicked off the meeting with an overview of her role in the project. She is the liaison, or point person between the communities affected by the ICC and the design and construction team. Any immediate concerns during construction, such as noise from construction, vehicle access, and the like, should go to Phillip. She noted it would be best if the community could designate a point person (e.g. Witze) to coordinate comments so that she is not receiving phone calls from multiple people about the same concern. Phillip will leave business cards with community members at the end of the meeting.
Mellor gave a run-down as to the status of the road. Exact details are not yet set as it is a ‘design-build’ project and there are still some details that could change. The ICC will cross over Shady Grove Road at an elevation of approximately 25 feet. It will be toll, and three lanes in each direction. West of Mill Run (i.e. just beyond our community) auxiliary lanes will start for people exiting onto I-370. Mellor estimated that the highway would be roughly 30 feet above ground level behind our community, with some give or take still possible (5 feet up or down) depending on what the design-builders do. The team, known as InterCounty Constructors, won the $478.8 million bid and will be completing the designs. The state has provided specifications for things such as landscaping and noise barriers, and the builders will need to abide by those decisions.
Lighting: The ICC itself will not be lit but there will be partial lighting at the interchange, such as where it meets I-370. Also overhead signs will be lit, for instance exit signs. The lighting will have cutoff fixtures and be low level. Mellor said he does not expect lighting more than perhaps a lit directional sign in our community.
Toll gantry: somewhere between I-370 and Route 97 (Georgia Ave.) there will be an overhead toll gantry to read EZPass tags. The location will be proposed by the design-builder. Phillip said the communities that would be affected would be consulted at that time. Mellor noted it would likely be in an area where the road is at ground level, not elevated like it is behind our community.
What next: Details for the design should be finalized in the May/June time frame. There may be some additional borings in our neighborhood. Notice to proceed with further construction is expected in the fall. The construction duration for Contract A is 39 months, which is not expected to be continual construction in our neighborhood, but perhaps intermittent. Mellor is in charge of design oversight for all of Contract A.
Blasting: they expect to do some of this. McMahon said that the design builders anticipate doing hundreds of preconstruction surveys to determine if blasting will damage the foundations or otherwise for nearby homes. Some of these may take place in our area.
Noise barriers: Mellor said our area qualifies by state definitions for a noise barrier – however the design builder will re-do the noise analysis to see if we qualify. Mellor said we likely would. They would then have another meeting with residences to be immediately benefited by the noise wall (i.e. Row 1 of our townhomes) and if 75 percnet of those residents say they want the wall, the state is obligated to build it. The plan would be to build the noise barrier as early as possible to help protect from construction noise. Typical height of a sound wall is 16-24 feet.
Other impacts: It will be roughly 100 feet from the line of disturbance (the edge of our property line that they took) to the highway. Construction crews will not be able to access via Berclair or other community roads. Rodents are sometimes a problem and Mellor said they are difficult to control – we should keep an eye out for this. Re other wildlife, the state will have a fence to restrict deer and relocate species such as box turtles. Regarding plumbing, Mellor said it should not affect water quality, but Pete noted that there is poor drainage in that area. Regarding health impacts, Greg noted that there are ongoing lawsuits regarding the environmental impacts of particulate matters, which Mellor did not dispute. It is not clear for the timeframe on which these lawsuits will be decided.
The meeting ended around 8:15 p.m.
N
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Minutes of April 4 board of directors meeting
Meeting of the Shady Grove Station Townhouse Association board of directors
April 4, 2007
In attendance: Art Carter (president), Steve Edgar (treasurer), Alex Witze (secretary)
The board discussed the large work truck that had been parked in the neighborhood. The letter asking the owners to remove it has apparently worked, as it is now parked at the end of Berclair Terrace. The board thanks the owners for taking care of this concern.
Steve noted that regarding parking issues, he still has a copy of the draft letter requesting vehicle registration information for all residents. He did not send this out with the second-quarter dues notice, as originally planned, as the parking situation seems to have eased somewhat in the neighborhood. Alex noted that there are still some issues, particularly with many multiple cars per household in some cases, but it was agreed that this plan would be kept as a possibility for when parking becomes quite tight again. The letter asks for make, model and license number for the two cars maximum per household on Weatherby Drive, so that the board can compile a list of vehicles that are meant to be parked here.
Art said that Gregg Price will help lead the environmental protection board, which will have a meeting shortly and report back to the board at the next board meeting. The welcoming board, to welcome new members, is also getting underway.
Steve said that the notification of the 10 percent dues increase had gone out as planned. He updated the board on the status of units that had not paid their dues. He also filed annual taxes, which came to roughly $31.
Alex will send out an ICC update shortly to all neighbors, as there is a community meeting planned with ICC representatives for late April or early May.
Art noted that Capitol Landscaping has started their annual service.
The next meeting will be Wednesday, May 30, at 6:30 pm at Art’s house (#7522).
April 4, 2007
In attendance: Art Carter (president), Steve Edgar (treasurer), Alex Witze (secretary)
The board discussed the large work truck that had been parked in the neighborhood. The letter asking the owners to remove it has apparently worked, as it is now parked at the end of Berclair Terrace. The board thanks the owners for taking care of this concern.
Steve noted that regarding parking issues, he still has a copy of the draft letter requesting vehicle registration information for all residents. He did not send this out with the second-quarter dues notice, as originally planned, as the parking situation seems to have eased somewhat in the neighborhood. Alex noted that there are still some issues, particularly with many multiple cars per household in some cases, but it was agreed that this plan would be kept as a possibility for when parking becomes quite tight again. The letter asks for make, model and license number for the two cars maximum per household on Weatherby Drive, so that the board can compile a list of vehicles that are meant to be parked here.
Art said that Gregg Price will help lead the environmental protection board, which will have a meeting shortly and report back to the board at the next board meeting. The welcoming board, to welcome new members, is also getting underway.
Steve said that the notification of the 10 percent dues increase had gone out as planned. He updated the board on the status of units that had not paid their dues. He also filed annual taxes, which came to roughly $31.
Alex will send out an ICC update shortly to all neighbors, as there is a community meeting planned with ICC representatives for late April or early May.
Art noted that Capitol Landscaping has started their annual service.
The next meeting will be Wednesday, May 30, at 6:30 pm at Art’s house (#7522).
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
May 8 meeting scheduled
This is to update everyone on the status of the State Highway Administration seizure of our land for right-of-way for the InterCounty Connector highway. As of April 5 we have been notified that our case is being escalated to the Board of Property Review of Montgomery County. The reason given is that the State Roads Commission of Maryland feels we have not been able to agree with them as to “the fair value of the property taken and the resulting damages to the remainder.”
What this means is that the state is no longer willing to discuss whether the $102,000 they have offered us for use of our property is fair compensation or not. I had been working with State Highway Administration representatives to come up with a fair value of compensation (working on the assumption that we should get as much compensation as possible, as some of you have expressed to me), but it seems that their patience has run out despite the fact that I had been waiting to hear from them on some details to put forth a proposed amount.
According to SHA documents, the Board of Property Review will hear our case, at a date to be specified, and “render its award of just compensation. This award may be appealed by either side.” I will send out another notice when the hearing date is set.
Separately, a meeting has been set with SHA representatives and the full community, on Tuesday, May 8, at 7 p.m. at my house (#7519). Please plan to attend. In attendance will be the contract manager for Contract A, our section of the highway, and public affairs representatives. The purpose of this meeting is not to discuss the amount of money we are getting, but to discuss any concerns we have about the impact on our community. This will be the best chance yet to ask the state questions regarding the appearance of the road in our community, the impact during construction, and so on. I will send out a full list of who will be attending in the days immediately prior to the meeting.
What this means is that the state is no longer willing to discuss whether the $102,000 they have offered us for use of our property is fair compensation or not. I had been working with State Highway Administration representatives to come up with a fair value of compensation (working on the assumption that we should get as much compensation as possible, as some of you have expressed to me), but it seems that their patience has run out despite the fact that I had been waiting to hear from them on some details to put forth a proposed amount.
According to SHA documents, the Board of Property Review will hear our case, at a date to be specified, and “render its award of just compensation. This award may be appealed by either side.” I will send out another notice when the hearing date is set.
Separately, a meeting has been set with SHA representatives and the full community, on Tuesday, May 8, at 7 p.m. at my house (#7519). Please plan to attend. In attendance will be the contract manager for Contract A, our section of the highway, and public affairs representatives. The purpose of this meeting is not to discuss the amount of money we are getting, but to discuss any concerns we have about the impact on our community. This will be the best chance yet to ask the state questions regarding the appearance of the road in our community, the impact during construction, and so on. I will send out a full list of who will be attending in the days immediately prior to the meeting.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Some ICC news: upcoming meeting
There are a few minor developments to report on the ICC front.
First, several members of the association (myself, Art Carter, and Jean Smith) met with a representative of the State Highway Administration on Feb. 20. The representative was a substitute for the person I normally deal with, who was out of town on a family emergency. However the main message we got from the SHA guy who came was that the state is very willing to entertain a counteroffer. Our neighborhood association next needs to present the state with what we think is a proper compensation for the loss of use of our land, above the $102,000 they have already offered. If anyone in this group has any experience at appraising properties, or any experience in real estate at all, and would be interested in helping me come up with this number, please let me know. I have many documents that state the rationale the state used to come up with the $102,000 number, but I am not an expert at gauging what kind of money we ought to be asking for ourselves. Of course we could always hire an appraiser to do this for us, but we would need to have association approval to go forward with that expense, which is not nominal.
Second, the state also wants to set up a meeting between neighborhood residents and the contract manager for Contract A, which covers our area of Montgomery County. This is a high-up official who will be available to answer our questions. He/she will come to a weekday evening meeting in our neighborhood, along with a public relations consultant, to meet with us. The state is currently trying to find a date for this but it will probably be in late April or early May. I would encourage as many of you as possible to attend this meeting, and will let you know when a date is set. The purpose of this meeting would be to ask questions and express concerns about the impact of the road itself, not to negotiate a compensation amount.
First, several members of the association (myself, Art Carter, and Jean Smith) met with a representative of the State Highway Administration on Feb. 20. The representative was a substitute for the person I normally deal with, who was out of town on a family emergency. However the main message we got from the SHA guy who came was that the state is very willing to entertain a counteroffer. Our neighborhood association next needs to present the state with what we think is a proper compensation for the loss of use of our land, above the $102,000 they have already offered. If anyone in this group has any experience at appraising properties, or any experience in real estate at all, and would be interested in helping me come up with this number, please let me know. I have many documents that state the rationale the state used to come up with the $102,000 number, but I am not an expert at gauging what kind of money we ought to be asking for ourselves. Of course we could always hire an appraiser to do this for us, but we would need to have association approval to go forward with that expense, which is not nominal.
Second, the state also wants to set up a meeting between neighborhood residents and the contract manager for Contract A, which covers our area of Montgomery County. This is a high-up official who will be available to answer our questions. He/she will come to a weekday evening meeting in our neighborhood, along with a public relations consultant, to meet with us. The state is currently trying to find a date for this but it will probably be in late April or early May. I would encourage as many of you as possible to attend this meeting, and will let you know when a date is set. The purpose of this meeting would be to ask questions and express concerns about the impact of the road itself, not to negotiate a compensation amount.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
ICC: another meeting
I received a call today from a public affairs consultant who is working with the State Highway Administration. He wants to arrange a meeting in late April or early May with his team and the contract manager for our section of the ICC. I will be in touch with everyone regarding if/when this meeting happens and what people need to know before it takes place.
Minutes: board of directors' meeting, March 7
Meeting, Shady Grove Station Townhouse Association board of directors
March 7, 2007
In attendance: Art Carter (president), Steve Edgar (treasurer), Alex Witze (secretary)
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm.
Art mentioned that he would like the next issue of the Weathervane to include ‘neighborly acts’ such as residents picking up trash, helping dig out cars during snowstorms, etc. Alex will inquire and include some of these in the next issue of the newsletter, which will come out in the spring.
The board discussed the work truck that has been parked for some time without moving in the first space on the right as you enter Weatherby Drive. A letter was sent to the believed owners but with no response. Art will develop a ‘violations’ form and submit a copy to the believed owners. He expressed concern over the legal rights of the board to tow the truck. Alex noted that some residents have pointed out that the truck hitch is extending into the parking area and poses a danger to cars that have to swerve to avoid it.
Steve brought copies of the proposed letter to ask residents to provide the make, model and license number of their cars. This is a first step in trying to get a handle on how many cars each resident is parking on Weatherby Dr. Each unit is allotted two cars only; any additional must be parked elsewhere outside of the neighborhood. Steve will distribute the form the next time the due notices go out. Eventually, if the lot is full and neighbors have no place to park, the board will discuss towing cars that are not on the registered list of neighborhood vehicles. To avoid this, overnight visitors should park in the reserved space allotted to the unit they are visiting. Much advance notice would be given before any such towing would occur.
Steve will send out the letter notifying residents of the 10 percent increase in dues, as approved at the annual meeting.
The board discussed a letter from the owner of 7530 requesting to pay the owner-occupied fee, as he considers it his second home and it is not rented out. The board agreed due to his circumstances, and agreed it would be best to re-classify ‘non-owner-occupied’ as ‘rental’ as appropriate. Rental rates are higher than owner-occupied rates to account for the extra cost of maintaining the property. Alex will draft a letter to the owner of 7530 in response.
Steve will pass around a copy of our current insurance policy so that all board members are aware of what is included in it.
Alex will look into higher interest-rate accounts that might be used for our reserve fund or to hold the ICC money if and when we accept it.
Steve will fill out a tax form for tax year 2006 by the deadline, March 15. Apparently this form has not been filed for some years but the board agreed it would be best to start filing it now as opposed to not doing it again.
Art discussed various committees getting started. Gregg and Melissa Price, and Annette Carter, are on the welcoming committee and will provide an update at the next board meeting. The same group, along with Pete Patellis, makes up the environmental protection board. They will set a meeting date and update at the next board meeting. The board also discussed the need for a planning committee to identify long-term issues of concern to the community, as discussed at the annual meeting. Alex noted that Debbie Edgerly has expressed interest in this and should be a part of any plans. Art will pursue.
Alex reported on her Feb. 20 meeting with the state highway administration regarding the ICC, which consisted of the state saying we should come back with a counteroffer with a monetary amount we feel is just compensation for the loss of our property. She will send out an update to the entire SGSTA membership shortly.
The next board meeting will be April 4, at 6:30 pm at Steve’s house.
The meeting adjourned just before 8 p.m.
March 7, 2007
In attendance: Art Carter (president), Steve Edgar (treasurer), Alex Witze (secretary)
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm.
Art mentioned that he would like the next issue of the Weathervane to include ‘neighborly acts’ such as residents picking up trash, helping dig out cars during snowstorms, etc. Alex will inquire and include some of these in the next issue of the newsletter, which will come out in the spring.
The board discussed the work truck that has been parked for some time without moving in the first space on the right as you enter Weatherby Drive. A letter was sent to the believed owners but with no response. Art will develop a ‘violations’ form and submit a copy to the believed owners. He expressed concern over the legal rights of the board to tow the truck. Alex noted that some residents have pointed out that the truck hitch is extending into the parking area and poses a danger to cars that have to swerve to avoid it.
Steve brought copies of the proposed letter to ask residents to provide the make, model and license number of their cars. This is a first step in trying to get a handle on how many cars each resident is parking on Weatherby Dr. Each unit is allotted two cars only; any additional must be parked elsewhere outside of the neighborhood. Steve will distribute the form the next time the due notices go out. Eventually, if the lot is full and neighbors have no place to park, the board will discuss towing cars that are not on the registered list of neighborhood vehicles. To avoid this, overnight visitors should park in the reserved space allotted to the unit they are visiting. Much advance notice would be given before any such towing would occur.
Steve will send out the letter notifying residents of the 10 percent increase in dues, as approved at the annual meeting.
The board discussed a letter from the owner of 7530 requesting to pay the owner-occupied fee, as he considers it his second home and it is not rented out. The board agreed due to his circumstances, and agreed it would be best to re-classify ‘non-owner-occupied’ as ‘rental’ as appropriate. Rental rates are higher than owner-occupied rates to account for the extra cost of maintaining the property. Alex will draft a letter to the owner of 7530 in response.
Steve will pass around a copy of our current insurance policy so that all board members are aware of what is included in it.
Alex will look into higher interest-rate accounts that might be used for our reserve fund or to hold the ICC money if and when we accept it.
Steve will fill out a tax form for tax year 2006 by the deadline, March 15. Apparently this form has not been filed for some years but the board agreed it would be best to start filing it now as opposed to not doing it again.
Art discussed various committees getting started. Gregg and Melissa Price, and Annette Carter, are on the welcoming committee and will provide an update at the next board meeting. The same group, along with Pete Patellis, makes up the environmental protection board. They will set a meeting date and update at the next board meeting. The board also discussed the need for a planning committee to identify long-term issues of concern to the community, as discussed at the annual meeting. Alex noted that Debbie Edgerly has expressed interest in this and should be a part of any plans. Art will pursue.
Alex reported on her Feb. 20 meeting with the state highway administration regarding the ICC, which consisted of the state saying we should come back with a counteroffer with a monetary amount we feel is just compensation for the loss of our property. She will send out an update to the entire SGSTA membership shortly.
The next board meeting will be April 4, at 6:30 pm at Steve’s house.
The meeting adjourned just before 8 p.m.
Minutes of neighborhood meetings
Hi, I will begin posting minutes of the board of directors meetings here every month. I will leave out sensitive details such as who has not paid their dues. :) Otherwise hopefully this will be a better way for all residents to stay informed as to what is going on with neighborhood business.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Annual meeting minutes
Shady Grove Station Townhouse Association
Minutes of the annual meeting
February 11, 2007
7 p.m. at #7519 (Alex Witze and Jeff Kanipe’s house)
The annual neighborhood meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. In attendance were Art Carter (7522), Steve Edgar (7518), Gregg and Melissa Price (7527), Ottie Gates (7505), Jean Smith (7521), Debbie Edgerly (7529), Pete Patellis (7506), Terri Smith (7508), Alex Witze and Jeff Kanipe (7519), and Lin Ye (7500).
President’s statement: Outgoing president Art Carter provided a review of neighborhood activities in 2006. Highlights included the repainting and replacing of the mailboxes; restriping the parking lot; and holding a community yard sale. He noted that several issues that are ongoing problems in the community, such as parking, have been resolved somewhat but not entirely by the restriping of the lot. Art raised several other issues that he feels are of concern to the neighborhood, including the need to audit the association’s finances and to look into updating the bylaws of the association. He noted that he felt the board of directors ought to be bonded, and that our current insurance policy should be reevaluated.
Treasurer’s report: Outgoing treasurer Steve Edgar presented the proposed 2007 budget during the meeting. The board of directors voted at its January meeting to implement a 10 percent increase in association dues to cover the operating expenses of the association. The new rate will be $129 per quarter for owner-occupied properties and $182 per quarter for non-owner-occupied properties, to take effect in the second quarter of 2007.
Steve noted that 2006 ended more than $3,000 in the red, mostly due to the expense of restriping the parking lot. He reiterated that this was a one-time expense and that the proposed 2007 budget is essentially break-even. One challenge in 2006 was that an introductory deal with Waste Management ended, substantially raising the price of trash collection. It was noted that the new board should look into negotiating a new deal with Waste Management or obtain bids from other contractors, such as Potomac Refuse. In 2006 the board also got bids from landscape companies and in the end decided to remain with Capitol, but with the 2006 rate locked in for the next two years, with a 3 percent cap increase for the following three years after that.
Jean Smith questioned how well the number of rentals was known. Steve said that he had been relying on county records. Art suggested that the new board look into more closely regulating and enforcing the non-owner-occupied rates for rentals.
Steve noted that the reserve fund is currently just over $19,300. With interest income and care the new treasurer should work to bring this back up to $20,000. Steve is not sure whether the association needs to pay taxes on its interest income, and will investigate. All financial accounts are now online and can be accessed by any of the board of directors. Steve reiterated that HOA dues are due by the end of the quarter, and that everyone needs to pay by then.
The 2007 budget was voted on and approved.
Elections: The nominating committee, composed of Melissa and Gregg Price and Pete Patellis, nominated the following individuals to serve on the 2007 board of directors for SGSTA: Art Carter (president), Steve Edgar (treasurer), Alex Witze (secretary). No one else was nominated or expressed interest in running. The slate of officers was voted on and approved. Note: Jean pointed out that in the past officers had been elected on a 3-2-1 basis, with one serving a three-year term, one a two-year term, and one a one-year term. It was generally agreed that this board would all serve for a one-year term, with the 3-2-1 slate to be revisited in future elections. It was also agreed that the board would function without a vice-president, as it has for most of 2006 following Elle Jauffret’s departure.
General discussion:
Finances. Some questions were raised as to the whereabouts of the financial records of the association. Steve said he had most of these, which could be used in an audit of the association’s finances.
Long-term goals of the neighborhood. Debbie noted that the association is in need of prioritizing its long-term goals for the neighborhood. There are long-running issues such as sidewalks in need of repair, and trees that need to be replaced, which may require big expenditures in the future. Debbie proposed that the association should draw up a firm definition for the use of the reserve fund and for a long-term plan for financially managing unexpected expenditures in the future.
Committees. The environmental protection committee needs to be re-established, as there was no activity in 2006. Gregg and Melissa Price, and Annette Carter, have expressed interest. Art also proposed establishing a welcoming committee for new residents, and a bylaws committee to review the association’s bylaws.
Intercounty Interconnector. Alex provided an update on the ICC issue. On January 16, 2007, the Maryland State Highway Administration filed in the Montgomery County Court to acquire the roughly 3,200-square-foot plot of land it wants to seize for the ICC. The state roads commission may now take possession and use the property as it sees fit for construction. The state has deposited a check for $102,000 in the name of SGSTA with the Montgomery County Court. This is the monetary offer the association received on Nov. 22 as compensation for the land. Alex noted that she did not know if withdrawing the money from the court, and depositing it an interest-bearing account in the name of SGSTA, constituted any kind of legal acceptance of the offer and thus limited the association from acquiring any further compensation from the state. She will investigate the legal consequences of accepting this money or how the association might best continue its negotiations with the state. She will be meeting with a state highway administration representative at her house on Tuesday, Feb. 20, at 1 p.m.; interested parties are welcome to attend. Alex will send out notes following that meeting to all SGSTA members.
Future board meetings. The board plans to continue meeting on the last Wednesday of each month, rotating between board members’ houses. All neighborhood residents are invited to attend these meetings; they should contact a member of the board ahead of time to learn where the location will be.
The meeting was adjourned.
Minutes of the annual meeting
February 11, 2007
7 p.m. at #7519 (Alex Witze and Jeff Kanipe’s house)
The annual neighborhood meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. In attendance were Art Carter (7522), Steve Edgar (7518), Gregg and Melissa Price (7527), Ottie Gates (7505), Jean Smith (7521), Debbie Edgerly (7529), Pete Patellis (7506), Terri Smith (7508), Alex Witze and Jeff Kanipe (7519), and Lin Ye (7500).
President’s statement: Outgoing president Art Carter provided a review of neighborhood activities in 2006. Highlights included the repainting and replacing of the mailboxes; restriping the parking lot; and holding a community yard sale. He noted that several issues that are ongoing problems in the community, such as parking, have been resolved somewhat but not entirely by the restriping of the lot. Art raised several other issues that he feels are of concern to the neighborhood, including the need to audit the association’s finances and to look into updating the bylaws of the association. He noted that he felt the board of directors ought to be bonded, and that our current insurance policy should be reevaluated.
Treasurer’s report: Outgoing treasurer Steve Edgar presented the proposed 2007 budget during the meeting. The board of directors voted at its January meeting to implement a 10 percent increase in association dues to cover the operating expenses of the association. The new rate will be $129 per quarter for owner-occupied properties and $182 per quarter for non-owner-occupied properties, to take effect in the second quarter of 2007.
Steve noted that 2006 ended more than $3,000 in the red, mostly due to the expense of restriping the parking lot. He reiterated that this was a one-time expense and that the proposed 2007 budget is essentially break-even. One challenge in 2006 was that an introductory deal with Waste Management ended, substantially raising the price of trash collection. It was noted that the new board should look into negotiating a new deal with Waste Management or obtain bids from other contractors, such as Potomac Refuse. In 2006 the board also got bids from landscape companies and in the end decided to remain with Capitol, but with the 2006 rate locked in for the next two years, with a 3 percent cap increase for the following three years after that.
Jean Smith questioned how well the number of rentals was known. Steve said that he had been relying on county records. Art suggested that the new board look into more closely regulating and enforcing the non-owner-occupied rates for rentals.
Steve noted that the reserve fund is currently just over $19,300. With interest income and care the new treasurer should work to bring this back up to $20,000. Steve is not sure whether the association needs to pay taxes on its interest income, and will investigate. All financial accounts are now online and can be accessed by any of the board of directors. Steve reiterated that HOA dues are due by the end of the quarter, and that everyone needs to pay by then.
The 2007 budget was voted on and approved.
Elections: The nominating committee, composed of Melissa and Gregg Price and Pete Patellis, nominated the following individuals to serve on the 2007 board of directors for SGSTA: Art Carter (president), Steve Edgar (treasurer), Alex Witze (secretary). No one else was nominated or expressed interest in running. The slate of officers was voted on and approved. Note: Jean pointed out that in the past officers had been elected on a 3-2-1 basis, with one serving a three-year term, one a two-year term, and one a one-year term. It was generally agreed that this board would all serve for a one-year term, with the 3-2-1 slate to be revisited in future elections. It was also agreed that the board would function without a vice-president, as it has for most of 2006 following Elle Jauffret’s departure.
General discussion:
Finances. Some questions were raised as to the whereabouts of the financial records of the association. Steve said he had most of these, which could be used in an audit of the association’s finances.
Long-term goals of the neighborhood. Debbie noted that the association is in need of prioritizing its long-term goals for the neighborhood. There are long-running issues such as sidewalks in need of repair, and trees that need to be replaced, which may require big expenditures in the future. Debbie proposed that the association should draw up a firm definition for the use of the reserve fund and for a long-term plan for financially managing unexpected expenditures in the future.
Committees. The environmental protection committee needs to be re-established, as there was no activity in 2006. Gregg and Melissa Price, and Annette Carter, have expressed interest. Art also proposed establishing a welcoming committee for new residents, and a bylaws committee to review the association’s bylaws.
Intercounty Interconnector. Alex provided an update on the ICC issue. On January 16, 2007, the Maryland State Highway Administration filed in the Montgomery County Court to acquire the roughly 3,200-square-foot plot of land it wants to seize for the ICC. The state roads commission may now take possession and use the property as it sees fit for construction. The state has deposited a check for $102,000 in the name of SGSTA with the Montgomery County Court. This is the monetary offer the association received on Nov. 22 as compensation for the land. Alex noted that she did not know if withdrawing the money from the court, and depositing it an interest-bearing account in the name of SGSTA, constituted any kind of legal acceptance of the offer and thus limited the association from acquiring any further compensation from the state. She will investigate the legal consequences of accepting this money or how the association might best continue its negotiations with the state. She will be meeting with a state highway administration representative at her house on Tuesday, Feb. 20, at 1 p.m.; interested parties are welcome to attend. Alex will send out notes following that meeting to all SGSTA members.
Future board meetings. The board plans to continue meeting on the last Wednesday of each month, rotating between board members’ houses. All neighborhood residents are invited to attend these meetings; they should contact a member of the board ahead of time to learn where the location will be.
The meeting was adjourned.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Phone books
If anyone did not pick up their phone books and needs a set, stop by #7519 in the next week. I picked up the remainders that had been sitting out by the mailboxes for some time. I will recycle them in about a week.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
ICC: The state has filed to seize our land
All:
As expected, the State Highway Administration has filed in court, as of Jan. 16, to seize the parcel of our land they want for the ICC. Technically I believe this now means that the state now possesses our land. I have not yet retained a lawyer because of the cost, but others who have consulted lawyers tell me this is the case. A check for the amount they offered us has been filed with the clerk of the court of Montgomery County in our name.
Please plan to attend the annual neighborhood meeting, at 7 pm on Sunday, Feb. 11, at #7519, to discuss what this filing means and how we should proceed from here.
If you would like me to email you the PDF of the court documents, just let me know at awitze@gmail.com.
As expected, the State Highway Administration has filed in court, as of Jan. 16, to seize the parcel of our land they want for the ICC. Technically I believe this now means that the state now possesses our land. I have not yet retained a lawyer because of the cost, but others who have consulted lawyers tell me this is the case. A check for the amount they offered us has been filed with the clerk of the court of Montgomery County in our name.
Please plan to attend the annual neighborhood meeting, at 7 pm on Sunday, Feb. 11, at #7519, to discuss what this filing means and how we should proceed from here.
If you would like me to email you the PDF of the court documents, just let me know at awitze@gmail.com.
ICC: Washington Post story
Bid to Get Land for Connector Escalates
Maryland Sues Some Property Owners to Condemn Sites
By Katherine Shaver
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 28, 2007; C01
More than a third of the Montgomery County property owners who must
sell land for the first leg of the intercounty connector have declined
the state's initial offers and are facing court proceedings to condemn
their homes, yards or other parcels.
The Maryland State Highway Administration has used eminent domain laws
to take legal possession of at least 66 of 178 properties between
Interstate 370 and Georgia Avenue, said Joseph M. Miklochik, director
of the highway administration's Office of Real Estate. A judge or
review board will decide whether the state's "fair market value"
offers are, in fact, fair.
The first stretch will make up about a third of the planned 18-mile
highway, which will stretch from Gaithersburg in Montgomery to Laurel
in Prince George's County. Construction could begin as early as this
summer, highway officials said.
Some landowners said the court action caught them by surprise. They
wondered why the state filed lawsuits or "quick take" petitions
against them while they thought they were negotiating a deal.
Others said they have felt rushed to sell before the state responded
to some of their inquiries, such as why neighbors received different
offers for similar land. Some said the state took legal possession of
their property in court while they were trying to discover the exact
land they stood to lose.
"Before we even knew it, there was a court filing against us," said
Alexandra Witze, whose Derwood homeowners association must sell about
3,300 square feet of its vacant common land for the highway. "We
haven't had time to get our questions answered from the state about
the impact this is going to have on our community or have any
dialogue."
Fred Begosh said the state moved to condemn part of his back yard
before he could learn why its $70,000 appraisal didn't include money
to replace mature trees. Landscapers have estimated that doing so will
cost more than $100,000, he said.
"They said they'd negotiate, but I can't get ahold of anyone," said
Begosh, who lives in Derwood.
State highway officials said they never intended to rush anyone.
Filing the court cases now will help keep the project on schedule,
they said. That is because the state must own or legally possess all
property in the highway's 7.2-mile western section before late March,
when it plans to award a major contract to design and build that
piece. Filing the condemnation papers in court gives the state legal
possession while the sales prices are being determined. The state must
buy about 1,400 acres, including 52 homes and 11 businesses, from
almost 500 property owners for the entire highway.
The intercounty connector, estimated to cost $2.4 billion, has been
hotly debated for decades. State officials say the highway, which was
proposed more than 50 years ago, is badly needed to improve east-west
travel through the Maryland suburbs, particularly between the
Interstate 270 and Interstate 95 corridors. Opponents, some of whom
have filed two federal lawsuits trying to stop it, say it will cost
too much, cause too much environmental damage and create unhealthy air
and noise pollution for nearby residents.
Miklochik said the state buys land for major road projects based on
independent appraisals of fair market value and negotiations with
property owners. To keep purchases moving, particularly in cases where
negotiations have stalled, the state can ask a Circuit Court judge or
the court's three-member Board of Property Review to determine a fair
price while it takes legal possession of the property.
In the meantime, the state deposits with the court the amount it has
deemed to be fair. Property owners can withdraw that money while the
case is pending.
State officials will continue to try to reach out-of-court financial
settlements after beginning legal proceedings, Miklochik said. The
state has not started buying land on the highway's eastern end, in
Prince George's County.
The number of cases filed in Montgomery, where most of the highway
will run, is on par for a big project, Miklochik said. He said the
state has settled with 16 of the 24 owners losing their entire homes
to the first leg of the road. One Derwood neighborhood, Cashell
Estates, has started emptying out as residents have begun accepting
the state's offers and moving.
"When we started this project, there was a lot of speculation that we
wouldn't have a lot of success," Miklochik said. "We've had
significant success."
A State Highway Administration spokesman declined The Washington
Post's request for the names of property owners facing court filings,
saying that compiling such a list is not necessary to comply with
public records laws. Some of those The Post was able to find through
court records and word of mouth declined to discuss their cases
publicly, saying they feared that doing so would jeopardize their
negotiations or hurt them in court. One property owner said she was
happy with her deal.
"We made out like bandits," said the former Derwood resident, who had
to sell her home of 53 years. She spoke on condition of anonymity
because she said she is elderly and lives alone. Her new home is
nicer, she said. State officials also agreed to pay for new ceiling
fans and an asphalt driveway to make her new house more comparable to
her old one, she said.
Although she opposes the highway, she said, state real estate
officials with whom she and her family dealt "seemed more than fair."
But others are not so happy. Many are losing peaceful woods and beautiful views.
A state official arrived on Alan Latt's doorstep the night before
Thanksgiving with an offer for a chunk of his Rockville back yard:
about $3.90 a square foot for the 38,000 square feet needed. Next
door, his neighbor Paul Sevier received an offer of about $6 a square
foot for part of his yard. Three doors down, a lot sold privately last
spring for about $12 a square foot, the neighbors said.
"I think they're low-balling us," Sevier said. "I just want a fair price."
Latt said he is trying to negotiate with state officials before they
file against him in court. He wants the state to pay for financial
damages he thinks he will suffer, particularly when he tries to sell
his house, next to a highway.
"It seems incomprehensible to me that you could replace hundreds of
oak trees with a six-lane highway in someone's back yard and say
there's no appreciable effect" on property values, Latt said.
Maryland Sues Some Property Owners to Condemn Sites
By Katherine Shaver
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 28, 2007; C01
More than a third of the Montgomery County property owners who must
sell land for the first leg of the intercounty connector have declined
the state's initial offers and are facing court proceedings to condemn
their homes, yards or other parcels.
The Maryland State Highway Administration has used eminent domain laws
to take legal possession of at least 66 of 178 properties between
Interstate 370 and Georgia Avenue, said Joseph M. Miklochik, director
of the highway administration's Office of Real Estate. A judge or
review board will decide whether the state's "fair market value"
offers are, in fact, fair.
The first stretch will make up about a third of the planned 18-mile
highway, which will stretch from Gaithersburg in Montgomery to Laurel
in Prince George's County. Construction could begin as early as this
summer, highway officials said.
Some landowners said the court action caught them by surprise. They
wondered why the state filed lawsuits or "quick take" petitions
against them while they thought they were negotiating a deal.
Others said they have felt rushed to sell before the state responded
to some of their inquiries, such as why neighbors received different
offers for similar land. Some said the state took legal possession of
their property in court while they were trying to discover the exact
land they stood to lose.
"Before we even knew it, there was a court filing against us," said
Alexandra Witze, whose Derwood homeowners association must sell about
3,300 square feet of its vacant common land for the highway. "We
haven't had time to get our questions answered from the state about
the impact this is going to have on our community or have any
dialogue."
Fred Begosh said the state moved to condemn part of his back yard
before he could learn why its $70,000 appraisal didn't include money
to replace mature trees. Landscapers have estimated that doing so will
cost more than $100,000, he said.
"They said they'd negotiate, but I can't get ahold of anyone," said
Begosh, who lives in Derwood.
State highway officials said they never intended to rush anyone.
Filing the court cases now will help keep the project on schedule,
they said. That is because the state must own or legally possess all
property in the highway's 7.2-mile western section before late March,
when it plans to award a major contract to design and build that
piece. Filing the condemnation papers in court gives the state legal
possession while the sales prices are being determined. The state must
buy about 1,400 acres, including 52 homes and 11 businesses, from
almost 500 property owners for the entire highway.
The intercounty connector, estimated to cost $2.4 billion, has been
hotly debated for decades. State officials say the highway, which was
proposed more than 50 years ago, is badly needed to improve east-west
travel through the Maryland suburbs, particularly between the
Interstate 270 and Interstate 95 corridors. Opponents, some of whom
have filed two federal lawsuits trying to stop it, say it will cost
too much, cause too much environmental damage and create unhealthy air
and noise pollution for nearby residents.
Miklochik said the state buys land for major road projects based on
independent appraisals of fair market value and negotiations with
property owners. To keep purchases moving, particularly in cases where
negotiations have stalled, the state can ask a Circuit Court judge or
the court's three-member Board of Property Review to determine a fair
price while it takes legal possession of the property.
In the meantime, the state deposits with the court the amount it has
deemed to be fair. Property owners can withdraw that money while the
case is pending.
State officials will continue to try to reach out-of-court financial
settlements after beginning legal proceedings, Miklochik said. The
state has not started buying land on the highway's eastern end, in
Prince George's County.
The number of cases filed in Montgomery, where most of the highway
will run, is on par for a big project, Miklochik said. He said the
state has settled with 16 of the 24 owners losing their entire homes
to the first leg of the road. One Derwood neighborhood, Cashell
Estates, has started emptying out as residents have begun accepting
the state's offers and moving.
"When we started this project, there was a lot of speculation that we
wouldn't have a lot of success," Miklochik said. "We've had
significant success."
A State Highway Administration spokesman declined The Washington
Post's request for the names of property owners facing court filings,
saying that compiling such a list is not necessary to comply with
public records laws. Some of those The Post was able to find through
court records and word of mouth declined to discuss their cases
publicly, saying they feared that doing so would jeopardize their
negotiations or hurt them in court. One property owner said she was
happy with her deal.
"We made out like bandits," said the former Derwood resident, who had
to sell her home of 53 years. She spoke on condition of anonymity
because she said she is elderly and lives alone. Her new home is
nicer, she said. State officials also agreed to pay for new ceiling
fans and an asphalt driveway to make her new house more comparable to
her old one, she said.
Although she opposes the highway, she said, state real estate
officials with whom she and her family dealt "seemed more than fair."
But others are not so happy. Many are losing peaceful woods and beautiful views.
A state official arrived on Alan Latt's doorstep the night before
Thanksgiving with an offer for a chunk of his Rockville back yard:
about $3.90 a square foot for the 38,000 square feet needed. Next
door, his neighbor Paul Sevier received an offer of about $6 a square
foot for part of his yard. Three doors down, a lot sold privately last
spring for about $12 a square foot, the neighbors said.
"I think they're low-balling us," Sevier said. "I just want a fair price."
Latt said he is trying to negotiate with state officials before they
file against him in court. He wants the state to pay for financial
damages he thinks he will suffer, particularly when he tries to sell
his house, next to a highway.
"It seems incomprehensible to me that you could replace hundreds of
oak trees with a six-lane highway in someone's back yard and say
there's no appreciable effect" on property values, Latt said.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Annual neighborhood meeting: Feb. 11
All:
Please plan to attend the annual neighborhood meeting for SGSTA, at 7 p.m. on Sunday, Feb. 11, at #7519.
Items to be discussed include the 2007 budget; election of officers, if needed; an update on the ICC issue; and any other neighborhood business.
Please plan to attend the annual neighborhood meeting for SGSTA, at 7 p.m. on Sunday, Feb. 11, at #7519.
Items to be discussed include the 2007 budget; election of officers, if needed; an update on the ICC issue; and any other neighborhood business.
ICC: Response from the state
[Note: I received the following email today from Alvis Dickerson, our contact with the state of Maryland highway administration regarding the ICC offer for our property. Please contact me (awitze@gmail.com) for any of the attachments. Thanks.]
Responses to questions from the Shady Grove Station Townhouse Association
Comment: Please survey and stake the portion of our property that the State plans to take for the ICC. How soon can we expect the State to do this? None of us are able to decipher the maps and get a concrete sense of exactly which portion of our property the State would like to purchase.
Response: Your reality specialist can request SHA survey crews to stake out the required Right of Way for you.
Comments: Please provide us with all information that the State has on the vertical profile and appearance of the proposed ICC from existing I-370 to Redland Road, particularly the portion that passes closest to our community. Please provide us with clear graphic depictions, numerical data on the ICC's elevation and location relative to our homes and land, and all other relevant information.
Response: A copy of the proposed profile in this vicinity as well as detailed cross sections have been attached. Note that these represent what is anticipated, but since this is a Design – Build project, some adjustments are possible.
Comment: Does the State plan to provide noise barriers along the ICC between existing I-370 and Redland Road ? If so, where exactly would they be located, how high would they be, and what would they look like? What cumulative noise levels does the State predict our community would experience if the ICC is built? By cumulative we mean the noise from traffic on the ICC, on the I-370 spur, on Shady Grove Road, and from other sources. If the State does plan to build noise barriers along this stretch of the ICC, by how many decibels does the State predict these barriers would reduce predicted noise levels in our community? If the State does not intend to provide noise barriers along this stretch of the ICC, why not?
Response: Noise Barriers are warranted for this area. Since this is a Design – Build project, it is up to the Design – Builder to design and build the noise barriers, so exact heights and appearances of the barriers are not known at this time. The Design – Builder is required to meet with each of the impacted communities to discuss the design of the noise barriers where they are warranted. A copy of the noise technical report has been attached, which shows the anticipated cumulative noise at the receptors with and without the proposed noise barrier.
Comment: How would the ICC's construction affect traffic flow on Shady Grove Road between Route 355 and Midcounty Highway, and on other local roads?
Response: The Design-Builder shall be allowed to access the ICC ROW from Shady Grove Road, so there will be some disruption of normal traffic on Shady Grove Road. However, the Design-Builder shall be required to coordinate all construction traffic impacts with the Community Outreach Manager and the Administration as outlined in Design Requirement 3.2 (attached). The Design-Builder shall not be allowed to access the ICC ROW from other local roads in this vicinity. However, the Design-Builder shall be allowed to reconstruct Redland Road from the Redland Road Right-of-Way.
Comment: How does the State plan to gain access to this stretch of the ICC during construction? Would crews access the site through the cul-de-sac at the end of Berclair Terrace? If so, what impact would that have on our community members driving into Weatherby Drive or using the cul-de-sac of Berclair Terrace for parking, as many of us do?
Response: The Design-Builder will access the ICC ROW through Shady Grove Road and MD 115. The Design-Builder will not be allowed to access the ICC ROW through the community.
Comment: When does the State plan to begin construction of the ICC along the stretch that would pass through our community? How long will this construction last? Please provide the State's best estimate on the levels of (a) noise; (b) dust and dirt; and (c) air pollution during construction, including the projected length of exposure for each.
Response: The Notice to Proceed for Contract A is currently set for March 2007. The anticipated completion for Contract A is sometime in 2010. During this time period various types of construction may take place such as: grading, noise wall construction, roadway construction, landscaping, etc. The construction noise must not exceed the construction noise limits outlined in the Design Requirements 3.8 (attached). The measures to reduce the dust and air pollution are listed in Design Requirements 3.5 (attached).
Comment: What impact would air pollution from vehicles on the ICC and other roads, and from other sources, have on residents of our community? Has the State modeled the pollution levels that would occur? Has it assessed the potential impacts on our health?
Response: The ICC, which is a managed facility, will tend to reduce congestion and vehicle delays within the study area, thereby improve traffic flow. In general, air quality is improved as traffic congestion and delays are reduced. As required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA90), a local air quality analysis was prepared for the ICC study area in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) guidelines. For the local air quality analysis, impacts due to Carbon Monoxide (CO) were analyzed. CO is used for the local air quality analysis because it is inert. The calculated CO concentrations are compared to the State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (S/NAAQS). These standards are set by EPA, based on the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA90), to protect public health, including the health of "sensitive" populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. If the calculated CO concentrations exceed these standards, a "violation" is determined to exist. The local CO air quality analysis for the ICC shows that there are no violations of the S/NAAQS, and therefore, the ICC will meet the requirements of CAA90 which protects public health, including the health of "sensitive" populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly.
In addition, the Washington (DC-MD-VA) region was designated a non-attainment area for PM2.5 (fine particulate matter - soot & diesel engine smoke) on January 5, 2005 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and, therefore, an analysis of the amount of fine particulate matter produced by the ICC was performed. Based on this analysis, it was determined that the ICC project conformed to the fine particulate matter requirements of the Clean Air Act, and that the proposed ICC project will not cause or contribute to a new violation of the PM2.5 NAAQS, or increase the frequency or severity of an existing violation
Finally, on February 3, 2006 FHWA issued "Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents". Air toxics are pollutants which although not currently regulated, could cause adverse health effects. A Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) analysis was completed with the assistance of EPA and FHWA and is consistent with the above guidance. In general, the MSAT analysis demonstrates that over time the amount of MSATs will decrease substantially from current levels as vehicle emissions controls devices improve.
Comment: If the State plans to light the ICC throughout the night, what impact would that lighting have on our community?
Response: The mainline of the ICC would not be lighted. Only the interchanges, Gateway Overpass Bridges, and some underpasses will require new lighting as outlined in Design Requirement 13.0 (attached).
Comment: The State's valuation of the land that it plans to purchase from our homeowner's association appears not to take into account the drop in property values that would almost certainly occur if the ICC is built so proximate to homes and our neighborhood. If the valuation does not include this impact on our property values, why not? If it does, please explain how.
Response: An appraisal is inherently subjective and represents only one estimate of a property’s Market Value. The forecasts and projections contained herein are based on current market conditions, anticipated short-term supply and demand factors and a continued stable economy. These forecasts are, therefore, subject to changes with future conditions, as is the value conclusion.
Responses to questions from the Shady Grove Station Townhouse Association
Comment: Please survey and stake the portion of our property that the State plans to take for the ICC. How soon can we expect the State to do this? None of us are able to decipher the maps and get a concrete sense of exactly which portion of our property the State would like to purchase.
Response: Your reality specialist can request SHA survey crews to stake out the required Right of Way for you.
Comments: Please provide us with all information that the State has on the vertical profile and appearance of the proposed ICC from existing I-370 to Redland Road, particularly the portion that passes closest to our community. Please provide us with clear graphic depictions, numerical data on the ICC's elevation and location relative to our homes and land, and all other relevant information.
Response: A copy of the proposed profile in this vicinity as well as detailed cross sections have been attached. Note that these represent what is anticipated, but since this is a Design – Build project, some adjustments are possible.
Comment: Does the State plan to provide noise barriers along the ICC between existing I-370 and Redland Road ? If so, where exactly would they be located, how high would they be, and what would they look like? What cumulative noise levels does the State predict our community would experience if the ICC is built? By cumulative we mean the noise from traffic on the ICC, on the I-370 spur, on Shady Grove Road, and from other sources. If the State does plan to build noise barriers along this stretch of the ICC, by how many decibels does the State predict these barriers would reduce predicted noise levels in our community? If the State does not intend to provide noise barriers along this stretch of the ICC, why not?
Response: Noise Barriers are warranted for this area. Since this is a Design – Build project, it is up to the Design – Builder to design and build the noise barriers, so exact heights and appearances of the barriers are not known at this time. The Design – Builder is required to meet with each of the impacted communities to discuss the design of the noise barriers where they are warranted. A copy of the noise technical report has been attached, which shows the anticipated cumulative noise at the receptors with and without the proposed noise barrier.
Comment: How would the ICC's construction affect traffic flow on Shady Grove Road between Route 355 and Midcounty Highway, and on other local roads?
Response: The Design-Builder shall be allowed to access the ICC ROW from Shady Grove Road, so there will be some disruption of normal traffic on Shady Grove Road. However, the Design-Builder shall be required to coordinate all construction traffic impacts with the Community Outreach Manager and the Administration as outlined in Design Requirement 3.2 (attached). The Design-Builder shall not be allowed to access the ICC ROW from other local roads in this vicinity. However, the Design-Builder shall be allowed to reconstruct Redland Road from the Redland Road Right-of-Way.
Comment: How does the State plan to gain access to this stretch of the ICC during construction? Would crews access the site through the cul-de-sac at the end of Berclair Terrace? If so, what impact would that have on our community members driving into Weatherby Drive or using the cul-de-sac of Berclair Terrace for parking, as many of us do?
Response: The Design-Builder will access the ICC ROW through Shady Grove Road and MD 115. The Design-Builder will not be allowed to access the ICC ROW through the community.
Comment: When does the State plan to begin construction of the ICC along the stretch that would pass through our community? How long will this construction last? Please provide the State's best estimate on the levels of (a) noise; (b) dust and dirt; and (c) air pollution during construction, including the projected length of exposure for each.
Response: The Notice to Proceed for Contract A is currently set for March 2007. The anticipated completion for Contract A is sometime in 2010. During this time period various types of construction may take place such as: grading, noise wall construction, roadway construction, landscaping, etc. The construction noise must not exceed the construction noise limits outlined in the Design Requirements 3.8 (attached). The measures to reduce the dust and air pollution are listed in Design Requirements 3.5 (attached).
Comment: What impact would air pollution from vehicles on the ICC and other roads, and from other sources, have on residents of our community? Has the State modeled the pollution levels that would occur? Has it assessed the potential impacts on our health?
Response: The ICC, which is a managed facility, will tend to reduce congestion and vehicle delays within the study area, thereby improve traffic flow. In general, air quality is improved as traffic congestion and delays are reduced. As required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA90), a local air quality analysis was prepared for the ICC study area in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) guidelines. For the local air quality analysis, impacts due to Carbon Monoxide (CO) were analyzed. CO is used for the local air quality analysis because it is inert. The calculated CO concentrations are compared to the State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (S/NAAQS). These standards are set by EPA, based on the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA90), to protect public health, including the health of "sensitive" populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. If the calculated CO concentrations exceed these standards, a "violation" is determined to exist. The local CO air quality analysis for the ICC shows that there are no violations of the S/NAAQS, and therefore, the ICC will meet the requirements of CAA90 which protects public health, including the health of "sensitive" populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly.
In addition, the Washington (DC-MD-VA) region was designated a non-attainment area for PM2.5 (fine particulate matter - soot & diesel engine smoke) on January 5, 2005 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and, therefore, an analysis of the amount of fine particulate matter produced by the ICC was performed. Based on this analysis, it was determined that the ICC project conformed to the fine particulate matter requirements of the Clean Air Act, and that the proposed ICC project will not cause or contribute to a new violation of the PM2.5 NAAQS, or increase the frequency or severity of an existing violation
Finally, on February 3, 2006 FHWA issued "Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents". Air toxics are pollutants which although not currently regulated, could cause adverse health effects. A Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) analysis was completed with the assistance of EPA and FHWA and is consistent with the above guidance. In general, the MSAT analysis demonstrates that over time the amount of MSATs will decrease substantially from current levels as vehicle emissions controls devices improve.
Comment: If the State plans to light the ICC throughout the night, what impact would that lighting have on our community?
Response: The mainline of the ICC would not be lighted. Only the interchanges, Gateway Overpass Bridges, and some underpasses will require new lighting as outlined in Design Requirement 13.0 (attached).
Comment: The State's valuation of the land that it plans to purchase from our homeowner's association appears not to take into account the drop in property values that would almost certainly occur if the ICC is built so proximate to homes and our neighborhood. If the valuation does not include this impact on our property values, why not? If it does, please explain how.
Response: An appraisal is inherently subjective and represents only one estimate of a property’s Market Value. The forecasts and projections contained herein are based on current market conditions, anticipated short-term supply and demand factors and a continued stable economy. These forecasts are, therefore, subject to changes with future conditions, as is the value conclusion.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Jan. 25 meeting regarding transportation in Montgomery County
Thursday -- January 25
Montgomery County Council Holds an Important Town Hall Meeting on Transportation Priorities
Please Mark Your Calendar!
Time: 7:30 pm
Place: Montgomery County Council Office Building
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville
(a ten-minute walk west of the Rockville Metro station)
Recommended Actions
1. Please sign up to testify. To register, call Delphine Harriston as soon as possible.
Ms. Harriston's number is: (240) 777-7931
It's fine to leave a message. Ms. Harriston is very reliable at returning calls.
2. Please urge family, friends and colleagues to attend and testify.
3. If the speakers' roster is full, please ask Council President Marilyn Praisner to schedule an additional hearing/town hall.
Montgomery County Council Holds an Important Town Hall Meeting on Transportation Priorities
Please Mark Your Calendar!
Time: 7:30 pm
Place: Montgomery County Council Office Building
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville
(a ten-minute walk west of the Rockville Metro station)
Recommended Actions
1. Please sign up to testify. To register, call Delphine Harriston as soon as possible.
Ms. Harriston's number is: (240) 777-7931
It's fine to leave a message. Ms. Harriston is very reliable at returning calls.
2. Please urge family, friends and colleagues to attend and testify.
3. If the speakers' roster is full, please ask Council President Marilyn Praisner to schedule an additional hearing/town hall.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
ICC: Area in question has been staked
Thanks to Terry Smith for pointing out that the area slated for seizure for the ICC has been marked by stakes. You can see them at the end of Berclair Terrace. I was only able to see three but perhaps there are some I didn't see in the brush and in the dark. So check it out.
I will next send an update to all neighborhood residents when I hear back from the state regarding answers to questions that arose at our Dec. 17 meeting.
I will next send an update to all neighborhood residents when I hear back from the state regarding answers to questions that arose at our Dec. 17 meeting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)