HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201400186 Correspondence 2015-01-05 Megan Yaniglos
From: THOMAS [taj3435 @centurylink.net]
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 9:53 AM
To: Megan Yaniglos; myaniglos @albemarle.gov
Subject: Estes Park, Phase II Comments from Forest Ridge HOA
Megan, per our phone conversation, I am sending you an e-mail exchange between our Board (Forest Ridge
abuts the new development) and Mr. Simpson, a third part contractor for the developer of Estes Park/Forest
Grove. Let me know if you have any questions and if we have any further comments before Thursday, I will
send them to you. As of today, the Board has not been able to get any feedback from the abutting owners, who
have also received this e-mail exchange.
Thank you, Tom Jones
From: cshenton3396 @comcast.net
To: simpson@ atlasconstructionmanagement.com
Cc: "Thomas Jones" <taj3435 @centurylink.net>, "James Tupper" <james.tupper @sbcglobal.net>,
"Tait Livingood" <taitliv @yahoo.com>, "Barbara Warren" <bjw212 @comcast.net>, "Jitendra"
<jkg8h @virginia.edu>, "Alan Davis" <aland0l @comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, January 2, 2015 1:27:49 PM
Subject: Fwd: Fence between Forest Ridge and Forest Grove
Mr. Simpson:
We have not heard back from you regarding the December 18th correspondence below and
were wondering if there had been further discussion on this and/or where it stands.
Thank you and we await your reply.
Sincerely,
Phyllis Shenton
for Forest Ridge BOD
From: cshenton3396 @comcast.net
To: simpson@ atlasconstructionmanagement.com
Cc: covais01 @comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 1:51:10 PM
Subject: Fence between Forest Ridge and Forest Grove
Mr. Simpson:
In response to your e-mail of Dec. 10th, you mentioned an earlier request from Forest Ridge
for an 8 foot privacy fence and landscape screening be installed as a buffer between Forest
Ridge and Estes Park development (now known as Forest Grove). According to the
November 13th, 2012 Albemarle County Planning Commission meeting minutes, there was
discussion regarding leaving a decent amount of existing trees intact at the site of the
1
Moubry Lane cul-de-sac, installing an 8 foot privacy fence and additionally the planting of
appropriate and attractive vegetative screening to be installed, such as Leland Cyprus on
the Forest Grove side. There was no objection voiced or mention made of covenantal
restrictions by Forest Lakes residents in attendance at this meeting. In light of the fact that
nearly all the natural vegetation has been removed and the land left bare, it seems that an
8 foot fence would be very unattractive on its own. We are so very disappointed at the
removal of nearly all the trees. We envisioned throughout the discussion that a fair amount
of trees would be left standing, and then perhaps fencing would be constructed on the
Forest Grove side along with the aforementioned vegetative screening in front of the fence.
At this point, it would seem the only solution would be the planting of a double staggered
row of vegetation, such as Leland Cyprus, that would make a clear distinction between
Forest Ridge and Forest Grove.
If a fence were to be constructed in addition to landscape vegetation, it is not acceptable
that it be installed on Forest Ridge property. We will not have to be responsible for the
maintenance of that. We do understand that Forest Lakes has their covenants, just as
Forest Ridge does. Our goal is that our little community remains attractive and desirable to
prospective homeowners. However, if Forest Grove is an extension of Forest Lakes, then
perhaps an exception can be made, as fencing would not be for landscaping purposes
within Forest Lakes, but a division of a subdivision meant to be small and intimate from a
very much larger community, of which we are not a part. As Forest Grove residents will be
adding financially to Forest Lakes HOA, we would appreciate this accommodation.
Development of the Forest Grove community is visibly very intrusive upon Forest Ridge, to
a lesser extent on Forest Lakes.
One additional point we wish to make (small as it is) is that it seems clear that the service
road which will be constructed has already been laid out and will take one of the few
hardwood trees remaining (an oak, I believe), leaving two very unsightly scrub pines just to
the right of it. Can the service road be repositioned to leave the oak and take the pines?
Our residents would like to see an amiable resolution to this issue and are willing to work
with you toward that end. We enjoy our peaceful little community and are naturally
protective of its maintenance.
Thank you for your consideration.
Phyllis Shenton
Member, Board of Directors
Original Message
From: Joseph Simpson <simpson@ atlasconstructionmanagement.com>
To: mampefrey <mampefrey @aol.com>
Cc: covais01 <covais0l @comcast.net>
Sent: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 10:39 am
Subject: Fence between Moubry Lane and Estes Park(Forest Grove)
Ms. Maumpe,
2
I understand that you are the Forest Ridge BOD President and I rece vi ed your email from the Forest
Lakes HOA. I am writing to you to discuss an issue that has come up between Estes Park (now
called Forest Grove) and the new fence line separating Forest Grove and Forest Ridge. I'm sure you
are aware of the new development going in at the backside of Moubry Lane. This is Estes Park and
was rezoned back in 2012 for development. As a part of the rezoning process of Estes Park, the
residents on the culdesac of Moubry Lane requested that an 8ft privacy fence and landscape
screening be installed to reduce views of the new development from the culdesac of Moubry lane.
This fence and landscaping is a part of the rezoning and will be installed by the developer. To clarify,
I am the 3rd party construction manager for that developer. The question that I am writing to you
about is whether or not that fence can be installed on the Forest Ridge side of the property line
instead of the Estes Park side of the property line.
3