The Fair Lakes Crossing Home (FLC) Owners Association (HOA) Board of Directors (BoD) convened via Zoom Videoconference and iPhone Facetime beginning at 7:30 PM on 16 September 2020 to take up matters requiring attention. 

Attendance:  4 of the 5 members of the FLC HOA Board were present: Ajay Ganji (President), Clarence Hunter, Kevin Nawroth, and Pete Mattes.

Two items composed the agenda:  (1) VDOT I-66 project easement agreement status, (2) Architectural Review Committee (ARC) business items.

Board Action:

  1. The BoD meeting began with a discussion of the need to establish a regularly scheduled and calendared Board of Directors meeting.  The BoD also discussed the need to ensure awareness of the community of the Board meetings and the business conducted there.  Mr. Ganji will check with the CMC management team on establishing a Zoom account that would accommodate members of the FLC neighborhood who would like to observe/participate in the Board meetings until Virginia restrictions on business and social gatherings allow them to be conducted in-person.
  2. The Board discussed the status of the community website and the need for it to be update and content refreshed.  Mr. Nawroth will lead the effort to update the website to include the posting of the minutes from Board of Directors meetings in a timely manner once approved by the BoD.
  3. ARC Business: The Board took up several orders of business related to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC):
    1. The Board discussed recent communication breaks between the BoD and the ARC related to ARC actions.  The Board would like to ensure strong communications and a good working relationship with the ARC and the critical work that the ARC performs.  Mr. Ganji made a motion to set up an in-person meeting between the BoD and the ARC to help in this regard.  Mr. Ganji will contact the ARC to establish dates in the near term to have this meeting prior prior to the end of September 2020.
    2. The second order of ARC business was the handling of a ‘3rd strike’ letter to Mr. Kambham for ARC violations.  The BoD decided at the 6 August meeting to take this action regarding Mr. Kambham’s situation:  “Mr. Ganji proposed that the Board allow Mr. Kambham to put together a point-by-point remediation plan with associated timeline to meet the ARC requirements in a timely manner and provide the plan to the Board no later than Friday 14 August 2020.  The Board unanimously approved the motion.”  The roles that the BoD and the ARC had in meeting the BoD’s intent, however, were not well understood and no action has been taken to date.  Mr. Ganji proposed that he should contact the ARC with direction to send a final letter to Mr. Kambham as a final notice providing him with 1 week from receipt of the letter to provide the ARC with a point-by-point remediation plan for his ARC-noted violations.  Failure to provide this remediation plan on time will require the BoD to take required punitive actions.  The Board approved this plan of action unanimously.
    3. The final ARC order of business was addressing the ARC response to proposed changes to the FLC HOA guidelines on deck materials and deck privacy screens.  The BoD unanimously approved the wording changes provided by the ARC.  Mr. Ganji will contact Krystal and CMC no later than 18 September to request guidance on the Resolution Action Record requested by the ARC from the BoD to implement these changes.  Once this is completed, Mr. Nawroth will post the new documents to the updated website.
    4. The BoD addressed no further ARC business.
  4. VDOT I-66 Project Easement Proposal request status:  At the 31 August meeting, the BoD took up the matter of the I-66 Project Easement Proposal from VDOT (see minutes).  The BoD requested that Mr. Nawroth contact the BoD’s legal counsel (Ms. Molly Peacock) to answer specific questions related to the VDOT offer to pay the FLC HOA for a permanent easement allowing VDOT access to a strip of HOA land to support the I-66 project during construction and upon completion.  The 3 questions and Ms. Peacock’s responses were:
    1.  How does this situation compare legally, from a liability perspective, to the larger settlement from last year?
      1. ANSWER:  Vdot’s proposed use of the easement is less clear in this situation than last year’s water management pond and temporary construction easements.  Thus, from my perspective, we have more potential exposure for less compensation.  I hope I am wrong and there will be no exposure.  We don’t really know what Vdot will do, probably neither will Vdot on the easement area.  But they are claiming a permanent easement, so with the lack of clarity about what they will do besides “construction activities,” and no information about what we are permitted to do, Vdot will be able to do almost whatever it wants forever.
    2. You mention the risk of the easement running afoul.  I think the board sees this as a very minimal risk.  However, we discussed risk in a broader sense, such as someone being injured on the easement which is on our land.  Does our insurance policy protect us in this instance?  Would it also protect the HOA if the easement negatively impacts a resident?
      1. ANSWER:  The HOA’s insurance might cover a claim that comes from someone who got injured on the HOA’s land in the easement area.  Whether there would be coverage for that claim depends on the injury, facts and circumstances, and details about the HOA’s coverage.  An example of a reason where insurance might not cover something is if the insurance company thinks the HOA knew or should have known about a hazard and should have taken steps to mitigate the danger.  Then we are in an argument about what steps we could possibly take; one would be send written notice to Vdot, another would be to sue for relief.  Vdot enjoys certain immunity from legal claims that the HOA does not.
    3. Is it clear that this current offer is only to use our land to develop the easement and the HOA retains ownership?
      1. ANSWER:  Yes.
    4. The BoD deliberated on the question of whether to negotiate an offer from VDOT (current offer $15,000) to retain permanent access to an easement granted from the HOA for use in support of the construction and eventual maintenance of I-66 or to force VDOT to take eminent domain action against the HOA which would result in the land being titled to the state of Virginia in final settlement, removing the HOA from liability.  The BoD concern was the retention of liability by the FLC HOA for anything occurring on the land if permanent easement were granted.  The BoD decided that the chances of anything happening to create liability against the FLC HOA were minimal and that the HOA insurance may well cover any financial settlement should something occur.  The BoD unanimously supports finalizing negotiations with VDOT to create a permanent easement for VDOT actions on the thin strip of FLC HOA land in question.  Mr. Ganji will contact Peyton at CMC and Ms. Peacock to finalize negotiations on the easement with VDOT.
  5. Finally, the BoD also discussed correspondence from Krystal at CMC that arrived just prior to the meeting.  The email requested the BoD’s intent on payment of taxes related to the 2019 VDOT easement settlement of $109,000 on which the HOA owes a tax liability.  The BoD will consider this and discuss at the next meeting of the BoD.
  6. No further business was conducted.
  7. The next FLC HOA Board meeting will be conducted following its meeting with the ARC at a time/place TBD.