Hardwick Mountain Property Owners Association
Minutes of Board Meeting held on 07/06/15 at 1:00 P.M. at the former Montagna residence
Kai Dozier, President, opened the meeting with a welcome to the two new Board members (Hogan, Jammé). He then presented a brief summary for the new members detailing major aspects of the Board’s responsibilities and operating protocol, as follows:
a.) The manner in which the Board conducts business
- A consensus of Board members is usually sufficient when enacting business, with a majority vote being used only when there is no clear consensus.
- Confidentiality in matters dealing with individual residents is to be maintained (especially in financial matters and/or past due assessment payment issues).
- Any written correspondence from the Board to any resident(s) must first be approved by all Board members.
- Board meetings are open to any Hardwick Mountain resident.
b.) Precedents and established positions that the Board has taken
- Subdividing any lot is not allowed (this includes even the larger parcels in the development).
- Only one residence per lot is allowed.
- Renting of a room or basement in one’s home to someone outside of immediate family is not permissible. While an owner may rent his/her/their house out if the owner is not living in it, renting a portion (room, basement, etc.) to non-family members while living in the house is not permissible (violating the single-family residence concept).
- The HMPOA will maintain any road on an HMPOA right-of-way that a property owner has had to construct to access his property (maintenance will be at the as-built level of construction; i.e., a gravel road will be maintained as a gravel road, etc.).
The new Board members were already aware of the Restrictive Covenants, Building Requirements, and By-Laws that are available for viewing on the HMPOA website.
Business Items:
1.) Officers: By general consensus it was agreed that officers for the upcoming year would be as follows: President, Kai Dozier; Vice-President, Carl Prober; Secretary, Steve Hovanic; and tentatively, Treasurer, Jeremy Cole (pending a review and discussion of the job’s responsibilities with Jeremy, Kai, and Barbara Dulaney, the former Treasurer). Since Jeremy had expressed interest in serving as Treasurer (having received the 6th highest number of votes for Board membership at the recent Annual Meeting), and since the Board must have a functioning Treasurer (Board membership can be greater than the five member minimum), he will be invited to serve once the review has been conducted. Kai will apprise the Board when such has been completed.
The subject of a small annual stipend (<$500) for the Treasurer position arose (Jeremy had raised the question some months ago); after considerable discussion, however, Steve suggested that no stipend be given for the 2015-2016 term, but that the matter be presented for discussion at the 2016 Annual Meeting. This recommendation was approved by all.
2.) Property Assessments: Kai noted that at some time in the past, action was formally taken to reduce the annual assessment from $351.38 yearly ($175.69 for six months) to $350.00/$175.00, respectively, but that the lower, simplified amount had never been implemented. It was agreed by consensus that the assessments for the period ending December 31, 2015 will be billed at the correct rate.
3.) Roads and Assessments: Kai presented a summary sheet he had prepared detailing the square yards of asphalt needed to cover all the development’s roads, and the date when each of the each of the sections was last paved. The purpose of this presentation was to remind everyone that since different sections of the roadways have been paved at different times and are also subject to varying rates of wear, their maintenance and/or repaving may need to be done at various times. In addition, it was noted that the annual revenue from assessments is far, far less than what would be needed to repave all the roads, and therefore, the annual assessment rate will have to be increased at some point in order to keep from falling farther behind.
There is currently no long-term plan for road maintenance. As everyone on the Board realizes both the critical nature of adequately maintaining the road infrastructure as well as the financial challenges of doing so, it was agreed to have a separate planning meeting in the upcoming weeks or months to begin to address these issues and develop some sort of long-range (i.e., 5 years/10 years) plan that can be shared with all the residents. Some local pavers will be asked to do a walk-thru/ride-thru with Board members to get a better idea of the time remaining before repaving needs to be considered, as well as what the estimated costs might be.
4.) Firewise Status: Kai briefly updated the Board on the status of the Firewise Community activities currently underway. Thus far, three days of debris chipping has been done, bids are being received for the water vault, and discussions have been held with both the Barboursville Volunteer Fire Company and tree experts/land excavators regarding creation of an emergency vehicle turnaround. As noted in some of the previous Firewise communications, much of the cost associated with these activities will be covered by grants from the Virginia Department of Forestry.
5.) Trees on Right-of-Way: There are four trees near the Butterfield entrance that are overhanging the road, preventing the fire company ladder truck from getting through, as well as causing damage to the pavement because of their root structure. Dave Butterfield had previously gotten quotes to remove them, but had refrained because of the costs involved. Since these trees are actually on the road right-of-way, the board realized that it is the HMPOA’s responsibility to have them removed. It was agreed to have James Riddle (whose firm did the Firewise chipping) remove them at a cost of $2200. There is a 5th tree in the vicinity that may need removal, as well; its condition will be investigated further before any action.
Steve felt that it would be advisable to establish guidelines as to whether or not trees should be removed and suggested a threefold set of criteria, as follows: 1.) if a tree on the road right-of-way is causing damage to the road surface, 2.) is a hazard to pedestrians or those in vehicles, or 3.) prevents or hinders emergency vehicles from passing through, it should be removed. If the tree is on private property and meets any of those criteria, it should be brought to the property owner’s attention so that it can be dealt with properly.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve Hovanic, Secretary
Site Navigation