Seven Lakes Landowners Association [SLLA] President Randy Zielsdorf has lately been the sole voice offering progress reports on the negotiations between the Association and the Seven Lakes Country Club [SLCC] over the implementation of the three-year-old “Driving Range Agreement.”
Recent statements by SLCC?President Steve Ritter in a Club membership meeting had some members of both the Club and Association asking whether Zielsdorf and Ritter were on the same page regarding the negotiations.
The Times interviewed Ritter by phone on Wednesday in order to offer our readers a better understanding of the Club’s position.
The five point Driving Range Agreement was signed after controversy erupted when the community learned the Club was interested in selling the old driving range, which lies between Seven Lakes Drive and Devonshire Avenue, to a residential developer.
But the recent talks have been more cooperative than controversial, Ritter told The Times.
“I?believe what is good for the Club is good for the community, and what is good for the community is good for the Club,” Ritter told The Times, adding that he and Zielsdorf have developed a cordial, productive working relationship.
Ritter admitted, however, that the process of implementing the three-year-old agreement has taken far longer than some might have liked.
Covenants
The first point in the agreement requires that the Club establish covenants on its property that ensure it can only be used for the operation of a golf course and country club.
Ritter confirmed what Zielsdorf has reported to his membership: the covenants are written and are currently under review by the Club and Association attorneys.
Noting that the key concern of the Association is that the Club’s property remain a golf course and not be put to other uses — for example, subdivided for residential development — The Times asked Ritter whether the draft covenants would include this protection.
Noting that he had recently built a home on the 15th Hole of Seven Lakes Country Club, Ritter said that he and other members of the SLCC Board were committed to ensuring that the golf course remains a golf course, and the draft covenants reflect that.
[The draft document has not yet been released to the public, and neither party has pledged to release it for public review before it receives final approval by the respective Boards.]
Easement
The second plank of the agreement obligates the Club to provide a ten-foot easement on the old driving range along Seven Lakes Drive, the goal being to prevent any future owner of the property from opening a second entrance into the South Side. The Club has yet to provide that easement.
Zielsdorf said in the SLLA’s November open meeting that he felt progress could be made toward finalizing this portion of the agreement.
Ritter told The?Times that the Club — and the landowners who make up its Board — have no interest in seeing a second entrance opened up through the old driving range.
In fact, he said, he would not vote to approve an offer from a developer that included a second entrance, and added that he did not believe other members of the SLCC Board would be inclined to accept such an offer.
However, he said the granting of the easement is contingent upon the Club and the Association fine-tuning the meaning of language in the fifth point of the agreement, which is integrally linked to the fourth point.
Architectural Review
The fourth point of the agreement stipulates that any residential development on the old range will be subject to the South Side covenants, giving the SLLA’s Architectural Review Board [ARB] authority to oversee the project.
The fifth point of the agreement obligates the Association to work with any future developer of the driving range property “in an open, efficient and cooperative fashion.”
Ritter told The Times — and Zielsdorf told SLLA members in the November Open Meeting — that this language is open to interpretation and needs further definition to satisfy the Club.
Noting that “there has been a lot of consternation” in the past over the possible development of the range, Ritter told The Times the Club wants to make sure that any future buyer is comfortable with the role the ARB will play in approving the development.
“We want it to be nice first-class development,” Ritter explained. “We know ARB will want it to be a nice first-class development. We just want to make sure ARB doesn’t go overboard. That’s what a developer’s concern would be.”
The language aimed at alleviating that potential concern is under negotiation and review by the attorneys representing both sides, Ritter said.
Mailhouse Parking
The third element of the agreement requires the Club to provide ground for five additional parking spaces at the South Side mailhouse. Ritter said this item is no problem, adding that he had deposited a rough sketch of the Club’s proposal in Zielsdorf’s mailbox earlier in the day.
Why revise the agreement?
While both Zielsdorf and Ritter report that progress — albeit slow progress — is being made on implementing the three-year-old driving range agreement, the question remains: Why does an agreement already approved by both the SLLA and SLCC Board’s need to be renegotiated?
Ritter told The Times that he sees the existing agreement as “a living document, not as a document that was made to stay in concrete.”
“Neither Board is a permanent Board,” he noted, explaining that Zielsdorf is the only remaining member of the SLLA Board who actually voted on the agreement and that no current member of the SLCC Board was serving at the time the agreement was approved.
“It’s a dated document,” Ritter said.
“We’ve never disagreed with any of those bullet points. We’re just hoping to keep that document open until we can cover every one of those elements . . .We’re working towards it. We’re checking off the parking spaces, the covenants . . .”
New representation
Ritter said the club, not finding a local developer interested in purchasing the old driving range, has listed it with NAI Carolantic Realty, Inc. in Raleigh, a regional firm specializing in marketing properties for residential development. The asking price for the five acre tract remains $240,000.
The goal remains finding a developer who will place homes on the property.
“We’re not interested in putting a Tank & Tummy out there,” Ritter said.
