A few of us knew about the possibility of this coming out, and I thank God it did.

Tammi over Living in LoCo has the story on the Developers in Lansdowne coming out and saying that they did indeed approve home-based businesses on a case by case basis. Somehow, this little fact had been lost by the current board, so Hobie Mitchell suggested:

“CMC Management should have record of this because it was a board decision and it was not based on a single board member’s approval. If CMC is stating that they do not have a record of this – we should request a full AUDIT of their files.”

Another interesting clip of the general history of this matter:

When daycare providers, their spouses and supporters canvassed the neighborhoods for one week between December 2006 and January 2007 with a petition for in-home day care services in Lansdowne, they got 167 signatures of support.

On the flip side, 10 residents composed a letter opposing home daycare, with point-by-point arguments about how daycare will lower property values and that the business could eventually run amok with “no limits to the number of daycare sites in this community.”

Mitchell has been absent from board meetings since January, and only found out about the issue from a resident after all of this started getting heated. Eric Florence, the HOA president, on the other hand, is adamantly standing by his statements: “If Hobie has proof, it should be in our minutes. If anyone said something that is not there, it is irrelevant.”

This of course misses the point. It’s not just about people “saying something,” but rather about actual approvals of home-based businesses by the board. Mr. Mitchell is not the only person who is aware of the existence of these approvals. Evidences for these approvals were presented to the board by the daycare providers in the May meeting and it was ignored. Thankfully, though, Mr. Mitchell is acknowledging what EVERYONE else knows: home-based businesses in general, and daycare providers in particular were indeed approved well prior to this issue, according to Mr. Florence, apparently dropping out of nowhere in early 2007.

Lansdowne Developer approved some Home-based Businesses
Tagged on:     

5 thoughts on “Lansdowne Developer approved some Home-based Businesses

  • Eric Florence’s letter purports that the Board researched every aspect of the home business issue and performed due diligence.

    Apparently Eric Florence’s definition of DUE diligence meant DON’T ask any original board members about the approvals.

    By the way, the CMC management contract is up for renewal. If CMC fails to find those pesky documents Eric Florence insists don’t exist, do they win the contract?

  • well if the same board of directors whose rear end would be covered by CMC not finding said documents, also votes on the management contract…guess who would win it.

    The real math here is 167 signatures of support vs. 10 residents in oppostion. That’s almost a 10 percent sampling, and maybe that doesn’t mean much but it goes to show you what could happen if the HOA were to “find the language” necessary to put it to the community.

  • Keep in mind that was 167 signatures out of 170 some odd houses. So I can imagine what the numbers would be if the whole neighborhood were canvassed.

  • if anyone hasn’t seen the comments section over at Living in Loco, you gotta go see it. I was rolling off my couch with laughter at the descriptions of the anti-daycare residents.

  • I wish someone would point out the section of VA Code that says you CANNOT prohibit certain uses of property…the Virginia code states certain things a community covenant cannot restrict, such as Family Care Homes–for, example, Family Day Care as licensed in Loudoun County.

    § 36-96.6. Certain restrictive covenants void; instruments containing such covenants.

    A. Any restrictive covenant and any related reversionary interest, purporting to restrict occupancy or ownership of property on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, elderliness, familial status, or handicap, whether heretofore or hereafter included in an instrument affecting the title to real or leasehold property, are declared to be void and contrary to the public policy of this Commonwealth.

    B. Any person who is asked to accept a document affecting title to real or leasehold property may decline to accept the same if it includes such a covenant or reversionary interest until the covenant or reversionary interest has been removed from the document. Refusal to accept delivery of an instrument for this reason shall not be deemed a breach of a contract to purchase, lease, mortgage, or otherwise deal with such property.

    C. No person shall solicit or accept compensation of any kind for the release or removal of any covenant or reversionary interest described in subsection A. Any person violating this subsection shall be liable to any person injured thereby in an amount equal to the greater of three times the compensation solicited or received, or $500, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred.

    D. A family care home, foster home, or group home in which physically handicapped, mentally ill, mentally retarded, or developmentally disabled persons reside, with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons, shall be considered for all purposes residential occupancy by a single family when construing any restrictive covenant which purports to restrict occupancy or ownership of real or leasehold property to members of a single family or to residential use or structure.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *