Facts mixed with conjecture to create a blizzard of emails and a maelstrom of controversy in Seven Lakes West over the past few days. At the center of the storm was a request for a hardship variance that would reduce the minimum square footage requirement for homes that will be built on several lots in the Stonegate development.
The flurry of emails become a lengthy debate during the Seven Lakes West Landowners Association [SLWLA] Board's Tuesday, December 13 Work Session. But that discussion offered President Mick Herdrich the chance to clarify several key points of contention -- and to emphasize that the variance will not be granted unless developer Ron Myers can justify the request.
“As it stands now, that has not been presented," Herdrich said. "We still have a long way to go on this."
He also clarified that the request is for a variance to the annexation agreement, not the community’s covenants. Specifically, the developer is seeking a reduction in the minimum square footage requirement from 2,000 to 1,600 square feet for eight of the twelve proposed homes, citing concerns over impervious soils and the possibility that the current size requirements could force him to construct two-story dwellings.
Herdrich said economic considerations or marketability issues are not considered a justifiable reason for approval of a hardship variance.
He further explained that the majority of the SLWLA Board of Directors had been unaware of the variance request -- and of its approval by the Architectural Review Committee [ARC] in a split vote -- until after reading minutes from the ARC meeting. ARC Director John Hoffmann was traveling and unable to attend Tuesday's Work Session; but Herdrich explained that, following the ARC decision, Hoffmann contacted him for clarification on hardship variances and determined that the request should be reconsidered at the committee level.
“They [ARC] will take up the request once again," Herdrich said. "They will make a decision, and it will be reviewed by the Board in open session . . . . Yes, he [Hoffmann] was wrong, but I’m not sure he realized that at the time. That is why, once he had more facts, he decided to kick it back to the committee for more discussion.”
Stonegate, ARC, & annexation
Bankruptcy proceedings in the early development of the Seven Lakes communities created a diverse and somewhat haphazard patchwork of neighborhoods and large, undeveloped tracts.
“The community is not homogenous,” explained Director John Goodman. “There were large areas left out of the Association. Some were recombined in a merger, and other areas were annexed.”
The minimum size requirement for homes in Seven Lakes West is 1,600 square feet; however, it has been the practice of the Association to require any annexed properties to adhere to the higher standard of a 2,000 square foot minimum. However, ARC has the authority to grant hardship variances on a case-by-case basis.
“The variance process, is relatively new," said Director Adam Wimberly, who chaired ARC before Hoffmann took the reins."You can’t say it is broken, as much as amateur hour . . . . The trick is, the covenants and rules are specific about ARC responsibility. If you are a homeowner and you make a request that is denied, where do you go? If the Board has already seen [and denied] your variance, where are you to go?”
“There has to be an appellate process," Wimberly added. "There is a method to the madness."
In October 2010, the SLWLA Board approved an annexation agreement for Stonegate, a twelve-home development near the back gate. The agreement was completed in January 2011, subject to approval of a final plat by Moore County and the Board.
As planned, the homes would be a minimum of 2,000 square feet and designed to be attractive to retirees looking for a smaller, high-quality, maintenance-free home. Over the last few years, in various discussions related to this project, the estimated price for homes in Stonegate has ranged from $275,000 to $400,000.
“When he [developer Myers] talks about marketing, he is talking about a widow or widower who doesn’t want a large home," Infrastructure John Goodman explained. "A number smaller than 2,000 square feet may make sense . . . . In my opinion, you can build a very nice home at a smaller square footage. This was designed and annexed as a downsizing opportunity mainly for people already in our community. That is the reason it was approved, because it did offer that.”
Director Wimberly agreed, describing the conceptual plans for Stonegate as “absolutely fantastic" with proposed homes in the Craftsman style.
“What is getting lost in this discussion right now, is that we are now looking at it after the fact," said Wimberly. "The community had a choice a long time ago whether or not to do these annexations. This is the tail end of a very long process. It is irresponsible to think the nine of us [Board of Directors] would want to do anything but to increase our property values.”
Director Don Freiert explained the developer’s request for the variance was partly based on limitations at the site that could force construction of two-story homes in order to meet the 2,000 square foot requirement.
“When people are looking to downsize, they don’t want a second story; they want one-story convenience,” he said.
Freiert also reminded the assembled crowd that all ARC rules on permitted construction materials would still apply.
“The presumption that, at 1,600 square feet, you will end up with crappy, tract housing is wrong," Freiert argued. "There are rules in this community about what can be used. Simply setting a 1,600 minimum does not establish an expectation that the development will draw down people’s [property] values.”
Former SLWLA President Ron Shepard said that discussion of Stonegate dates back at least four years.
“There was a long process with annexation that went back and forth," Shepard explained. "The developer is a legitimate businessman and a nice person besides. He made a presentation to the community on what he plans to do. The final annexation was done with 2,000 square foot homes that are absolutely beautiful. The only variance, early in the process, was the setback between homes. What has come up now must be a change in heart from someone over there to decrease the size so he can sell more or sell them for less money.”
Director Jack Stevens said his understanding of the developer’s intention was to increase space between the houses by pulling them back from the street to make them more attractive and appealing.
Strong opposition to request
Ray Sibiga said he was one of two ARC members to oppose the decision when the variance request was first heard -- and that he sent out an email describing what had occurred, because he felt it was an item of significant interest and the community should have input.
Sibiga said he was concerned the approved variance would be setting a precedent for future developers, and explained he was upset that the request had not been included in the ARC meeting agenda. Instead, he said, the request was thrust on the committee for a snap decision.
Many other residents shared their concerns with the Board, the vast majority expressing opposition to the granting of the variance.
Former Director Betty Milligan recalled that the original annexation agreement was set at 2,000 square feet to protect the community.
“We have houses from 11,000 square feet on down," Milligan said. "When you put a 1,600 square foot house up against the majority of homes in here, you are talking about downgrading the community. Developers are in the business of making money and developing properties. They are not concerned about what the community will look like [in the long range future] and what will happen to property owners.”
“To downsize doesn’t mean that people [already] in here will be buying. Anybody can buy into those houses and have all these wonderful amenities,” she cautioned.
Resident Bernadette York said that, in her experience as a real estate professional, homes under 2,000 square feet are typically not of the same calibre as larger homes.
“Square footage determines value -- taxation wise and in all other parameters,” York said.
Director Jim Ferguson countered that upgraded interior finishes and appliances will add value -- no matter the overall size of the home.
“There are plus and minus factors," Ferguson said. "You just can’t judge a book by its cover."
Director Wimberly also pointed out the proposed development is not so different from the smaller, clustered homes of The Pinnacles. However, York argued that was a different situation, as those homes are mostly hidden, unlike the Stonegate property, which is adjacent to the back gate.
“They [Pinnacles] are not obtrusive," she said. "You can’t see it or walk to it."
Walking -- or rather a walking trail -- was another sore point in discussion, as many residents questioned whether the variance had been granted based on a quid pro quo agreement for an easement located at Colton’s Corner, a related development also located near the back gate.
Addressing the Board, Bob Keiling said the email that kicked off the controversy had suggested the walking path and variance were related.
“Let’s get the facts straight and information on table before we go any further,” he recommended.
President Herdrich said there was no quid pro quo, and both he and Director Wimberly noted that the proposed walking path easement has been an ongoing topic of discussion since long before the Stonegate variance request.
“We made it very clear that quid pro quo is not allowed, and the developer understands this,” added Director Freiert.
Addressing the other supposed goals of the developer’s variance request, another resident suggested that reducing the total number of proposed homes -- rather than reducing the size of each home -- would allow for additional space between homes and also avoid any problems with impervious soils.
Resident Kathy Bergquist noted that the Board was actively taking steps to increase property values on a number of fronts -- such as developing standards to improve procedures for Open House events -- yet, were considering reducing requirements somewhere else.
Resident Roger Brooke also spoke in opposition to the reduction, arguing the Board should be raising the standards of the community, not lowering them.
'An abundance of ridiculousness'
Beyond the variance request itself, Board members during Tuesday's Work Session expressed consternation about communication on the issue -- or the lack thereof.
“There has been an abundance of ridiculousness,” said Director Adam Wimberly. “Communication is a two-way street, and we have to be responsible on both sides.”
“There are a lot of wrong emails that went out," he continued. "Some people should have known better because some of these bordered on the ridiculous,” he said. “We have a responsibility to increase our communication with the community, but the community has a responsibility to discuss things with us in a reasonable way. We are taking hits for things we haven’t done, for things we haven’t considered!”
Director Jane Sessler agreed and said that transparency is a non-issue, specifically expressing disappointment that the initial email did not mention that the Board had, in fact, responded when the concern was first raised.
Herdrich said that, while ARC has the authority to approve variances, it will be the practice of the Board to review those decisions. He explained that ARC meetings are open meetings. Any resident wishing to address the committee should contact Community Manager Joan Frost so their name can be placed on the meeting agenda.
