Potomac Yard (Alexandria) HOA — Issues?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The city "could have" required reserved parking, but apparently it did not.

How is it apparent that the city didn't require reserved parking?

Read the association pleadings. The response was beyond telling. Lawyers have ethical and legal standards to adhere to, and therefore, they cannot purport something that is patently false and can be proven not to be true.

I'm not a lawyer. But maybe this claim is absent from the defense's pleadings because it's going to take some time for them to substantiate it. The evidence won't be in the HOA's records. It'll be in the city's and/or Pulte's records.

This makes zero sense. The association already filed a motion to dismiss, but this seems to be related to the insurance lawyer seeking more billable hours.


This is the same attorney who is representing the PYHOA. While this is a federal case, the HOA member is being denied access to a common area. The motion to dismiss was denied. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/57579144/Kidd_v_Associa_Community_Management_Corporation_et_al

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The city "could have" required reserved parking, but apparently it did not.

How is it apparent that the city didn't require reserved parking?

Read the association pleadings. The response was beyond telling. Lawyers have ethical and legal standards to adhere to, and therefore, they cannot purport something that is patently false and can be proven not to be true.

I'm not a lawyer. But maybe this claim is absent from the defense's pleadings because it's going to take some time for them to substantiate it. The evidence won't be in the HOA's records. It'll be in the city's and/or Pulte's records.

I am guessing you missed this?

Good morning, -

I am in the Office of Real Estate Assessments. We have the responsibility to value all real property in the City every year at its fair market value for taxation. Real property is the interests, benefits, and rights inherent in the ownership of physical property (the land and all things attached to the land by people).
...

Sincerely,

Appraiser Supervisor

I saw that. But I thought we were talking about whether or not the city required the development to have reserved parking for units without garages. Assessments have nothing to do with that, and I wouldn't expect the Office of Real Estate Assessments to know anything about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The city "could have" required reserved parking, but apparently it did not.

How is it apparent that the city didn't require reserved parking?

Read the association pleadings. The response was beyond telling. Lawyers have ethical and legal standards to adhere to, and therefore, they cannot purport something that is patently false and can be proven not to be true.

I'm not a lawyer. But maybe this claim is absent from the defense's pleadings because it's going to take some time for them to substantiate it. The evidence won't be in the HOA's records. It'll be in the city's and/or Pulte's records.

I am guessing you missed this?

Good morning, -

I am in the Office of Real Estate Assessments. We have the responsibility to value all real property in the City every year at its fair market value for taxation. Real property is the interests, benefits, and rights inherent in the ownership of physical property (the land and all things attached to the land by people).
...

Sincerely,

Appraiser Supervisor

I saw that. But I thought we were talking about whether or not the city required the development to have reserved parking for units without garages. Assessments have nothing to do with that, and I wouldn't expect the Office of Real Estate Assessments to know anything about it.

I saw this to ?

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Alex311 <[e-mail]>
To:
Date:
Subject: PZ-Planning and Zoning General Comments, Complaints, and Inquiries - (24-00024505) [ thread::NC-5g-enGwmBO-04gDS7iSA:: ]




The Zoning Ordinance only specifies the number of spaces to be provided, the size, and pavement materials. The Zoning Ordiannce does not regulate the assignement of spaces. This is not a zoning issue but may be a civil matter between the HOA and residents who may object.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The city "could have" required reserved parking, but apparently it did not.

How is it apparent that the city didn't require reserved parking?

Read the association pleadings. The response was beyond telling. Lawyers have ethical and legal standards to adhere to, and therefore, they cannot purport something that is patently false and can be proven not to be true.

I'm not a lawyer. But maybe this claim is absent from the defense's pleadings because it's going to take some time for them to substantiate it. The evidence won't be in the HOA's records. It'll be in the city's and/or Pulte's records.

This makes zero sense. The association already filed a motion to dismiss, but this seems to be related to the insurance lawyer seeking more billable hours.


This is the same attorney who is representing the PYHOA. While this is a federal case, the HOA member is being denied access to a common area. The motion to dismiss was denied. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/57579144/Kidd_v_Associa_Community_Management_Corporation_et_al

Lawyers are almost always going to file for Motion to Dismiss. It's usually not granted if there is any viable legal argument, but the defending lawyer needs to try to end the case if possible for her/his client. It's SOP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The city "could have" required reserved parking, but apparently it did not.

How is it apparent that the city didn't require reserved parking?

Read the association pleadings. The response was beyond telling. Lawyers have ethical and legal standards to adhere to, and therefore, they cannot purport something that is patently false and can be proven not to be true.

I'm not a lawyer. But maybe this claim is absent from the defense's pleadings because it's going to take some time for them to substantiate it. The evidence won't be in the HOA's records. It'll be in the city's and/or Pulte's records.

I am guessing you missed this?

Good morning, -

I am in the Office of Real Estate Assessments. We have the responsibility to value all real property in the City every year at its fair market value for taxation. Real property is the interests, benefits, and rights inherent in the ownership of physical property (the land and all things attached to the land by people).
...

Sincerely,

Appraiser Supervisor

I saw that. But I thought we were talking about whether or not the city required the development to have reserved parking for units without garages. Assessments have nothing to do with that, and I wouldn't expect the Office of Real Estate Assessments to know anything about it.

I saw this to ?

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Alex311 <[e-mail]>
To:
Date:
Subject: PZ-Planning and Zoning General Comments, Complaints, and Inquiries - (24-00024505) [ thread::NC-5g-enGwmBO-04gDS7iSA:: ]




The Zoning Ordinance only specifies the number of spaces to be provided, the size, and pavement materials. The Zoning Ordiannce does not regulate the assignement of spaces. This is not a zoning issue but may be a civil matter between the HOA and residents who may object.

Correct - this is typical of development zoning ordinances. They require a certain amount of parking to be available for residential units being built. The reasoning behind the amount of parking necessary would take into account parking needed for visitors and contractors. The HOA made up the idea to reserve spaces to individual owners -- in a designated common area.

BTW, what happens to the reserved spaces if the homeowner does not have a vehicle and actually bought a home without a place to keep a car on purpose? Are the spaces opened up for general use? Can the homeowner rent out the spaces?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The city "could have" required reserved parking, but apparently it did not.

How is it apparent that the city didn't require reserved parking?

Read the association pleadings. The response was beyond telling. Lawyers have ethical and legal standards to adhere to, and therefore, they cannot purport something that is patently false and can be proven not to be true.

I'm not a lawyer. But maybe this claim is absent from the defense's pleadings because it's going to take some time for them to substantiate it. The evidence won't be in the HOA's records. It'll be in the city's and/or Pulte's records.

I am guessing you missed this?

Good morning, -

I am in the Office of Real Estate Assessments. We have the responsibility to value all real property in the City every year at its fair market value for taxation. Real property is the interests, benefits, and rights inherent in the ownership of physical property (the land and all things attached to the land by people).
...

Sincerely,

Appraiser Supervisor

I saw that. But I thought we were talking about whether or not the city required the development to have reserved parking for units without garages. Assessments have nothing to do with that, and I wouldn't expect the Office of Real Estate Assessments to know anything about it.

I saw this to ?

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Alex311 <[e-mail]>
To:
Date:
Subject: PZ-Planning and Zoning General Comments, Complaints, and Inquiries - (24-00024505) [ thread::NC-5g-enGwmBO-04gDS7iSA:: ]




The Zoning Ordinance only specifies the number of spaces to be provided, the size, and pavement materials. The Zoning Ordiannce does not regulate the assignement of spaces. This is not a zoning issue but may be a civil matter between the HOA and residents who may object.

Correct - this is typical of development zoning ordinances. They require a certain amount of parking to be available for residential units being built. The reasoning behind the amount of parking necessary would take into account parking needed for visitors and contractors. The HOA made up the idea to reserve spaces to individual owners -- in a designated common area.

BTW, what happens to the reserved spaces if the homeowner does not have a vehicle and actually bought a home without a place to keep a car on purpose? Are the spaces opened up for general use? Can the homeowner rent out the spaces?

Specifically, I would like to know if renters who are not HOA members are permitted to tow vehicles belonging to HOA members who have garages ?We have a renter parking in front of our house everyday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Considering buying in this community in alexandria. But based on google searches, am seeing lots of controversy about their HOA — especially from one angry homeowner. Search YouTube too. Also possible lawsuits?

Is this one homeowner an outlier or just disgruntled? Or is this is a systemic issue?

Last thing I need is an HOA headache. Anyone have info or background? Am I worrying too much?

Potomac Yard is _very_ run down. I would not live there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Considering buying in this community in alexandria. But based on google searches, am seeing lots of controversy about their HOA — especially from one angry homeowner. Search YouTube too. Also possible lawsuits?

Is this one homeowner an outlier or just disgruntled? Or is this is a systemic issue?

Last thing I need is an HOA headache. Anyone have info or background? Am I worrying too much?

Potomac Yard is _very_ run down. I would not live there.

I find the aesthetic to be too "Stepford looking" and the overall construction quality to be shoddy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The city "could have" required reserved parking, but apparently it did not.

How is it apparent that the city didn't require reserved parking?

Read the association pleadings. The response was beyond telling. Lawyers have ethical and legal standards to adhere to, and therefore, they cannot purport something that is patently false and can be proven not to be true.

I'm not a lawyer. But maybe this claim is absent from the defense's pleadings because it's going to take some time for them to substantiate it. The evidence won't be in the HOA's records. It'll be in the city's and/or Pulte's records.

I am guessing you missed this?

Good morning, -

I am in the Office of Real Estate Assessments. We have the responsibility to value all real property in the City every year at its fair market value for taxation. Real property is the interests, benefits, and rights inherent in the ownership of physical property (the land and all things attached to the land by people).
...

Sincerely,

Appraiser Supervisor

I saw that. But I thought we were talking about whether or not the city required the development to have reserved parking for units without garages. Assessments have nothing to do with that, and I wouldn't expect the Office of Real Estate Assessments to know anything about it.

I saw this to ?

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Alex311 <[e-mail]>
To:
Date:
Subject: PZ-Planning and Zoning General Comments, Complaints, and Inquiries - (24-00024505) [ thread::NC-5g-enGwmBO-04gDS7iSA:: ]




The Zoning Ordinance only specifies the number of spaces to be provided, the size, and pavement materials. The Zoning Ordiannce does not regulate the assignement of spaces. This is not a zoning issue but may be a civil matter between the HOA and residents who may object.

Correct - this is typical of development zoning ordinances. They require a certain amount of parking to be available for residential units being built. The reasoning behind the amount of parking necessary would take into account parking needed for visitors and contractors. The HOA made up the idea to reserve spaces to individual owners -- in a designated common area.

BTW, what happens to the reserved spaces if the homeowner does not have a vehicle and actually bought a home without a place to keep a car on purpose? Are the spaces opened up for general use? Can the homeowner rent out the spaces?

That question is exactly why Frank will prevail. In what world can one homeowner pay for the upkeep of an amenity that only benefits another?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The city "could have" required reserved parking, but apparently it did not.

How is it apparent that the city didn't require reserved parking?

Read the association pleadings. The response was beyond telling. Lawyers have ethical and legal standards to adhere to, and therefore, they cannot purport something that is patently false and can be proven not to be true.

I'm not a lawyer. But maybe this claim is absent from the defense's pleadings because it's going to take some time for them to substantiate it. The evidence won't be in the HOA's records. It'll be in the city's and/or Pulte's records.

I am guessing you missed this?

Good morning, -

I am in the Office of Real Estate Assessments. We have the responsibility to value all real property in the City every year at its fair market value for taxation. Real property is the interests, benefits, and rights inherent in the ownership of physical property (the land and all things attached to the land by people).
...

Sincerely,

Appraiser Supervisor

I saw that. But I thought we were talking about whether or not the city required the development to have reserved parking for units without garages. Assessments have nothing to do with that, and I wouldn't expect the Office of Real Estate Assessments to know anything about it.

I saw this to ?

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Alex311 <[e-mail]>
To:
Date:
Subject: PZ-Planning and Zoning General Comments, Complaints, and Inquiries - (24-00024505) [ thread::NC-5g-enGwmBO-04gDS7iSA:: ]




The Zoning Ordinance only specifies the number of spaces to be provided, the size, and pavement materials. The Zoning Ordiannce does not regulate the assignement of spaces. This is not a zoning issue but may be a civil matter between the HOA and residents who may object.

Yep, I saw that too. It's irrelevant to the question of whether the city could have required reserved parking.

Look at it this way. Under what authority was the city able to make the HOA operate a shuttle service? Is there something in the Zoning Ordinance requiring a shuttle? I doubt it.

I posit that the zoning of the area where PY was planned didn't allow that kind of usage, so Pulte had to request a variance. The variance process involves negotiations between the city and the developer, in which the city is supposed to insist on concessions that will ameliorate the non-conforming development's impact. The possible concessions don't have to correspond to requirements that happen to exist in the zoning rules. So just as the city was able to make the HOA run a shuttle service, they could have required reserved parking spaces for units without a garage, even though the Zoning Ordinance doesn't require reserved parking in any zone.

[Anonymous]

The shuttle requirement is in a DSUP. Again, read the association's pleadings. No claim or defense of assigned parking spaces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The city "could have" required reserved parking, but apparently it did not.

How is it apparent that the city didn't require reserved parking?

Read the association pleadings. The response was beyond telling. Lawyers have ethical and legal standards to adhere to, and therefore, they cannot purport something that is patently false and can be proven not to be true.

I'm not a lawyer. But maybe this claim is absent from the defense's pleadings because it's going to take some time for them to substantiate it. The evidence won't be in the HOA's records. It'll be in the city's and/or Pulte's records.

I am guessing you missed this?

Good morning, -

I am in the Office of Real Estate Assessments. We have the responsibility to value all real property in the City every year at its fair market value for taxation. Real property is the interests, benefits, and rights inherent in the ownership of physical property (the land and all things attached to the land by people).
...

Sincerely,

Appraiser Supervisor

I saw that. But I thought we were talking about whether or not the city required the development to have reserved parking for units without garages. Assessments have nothing to do with that, and I wouldn't expect the Office of Real Estate Assessments to know anything about it.

I saw this to ?

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Alex311 <[e-mail]>
To:
Date:
Subject: PZ-Planning and Zoning General Comments, Complaints, and Inquiries - (24-00024505) [ thread::NC-5g-enGwmBO-04gDS7iSA:: ]




The Zoning Ordinance only specifies the number of spaces to be provided, the size, and pavement materials. The Zoning Ordiannce does not regulate the assignement of spaces. This is not a zoning issue but may be a civil matter between the HOA and residents who may object.

Yep, I saw that too. It's irrelevant to the question of whether the city could have required reserved parking.

Look at it this way. Under what authority was the city able to make the HOA operate a shuttle service? Is there something in the Zoning Ordinance requiring a shuttle? I doubt it.

I posit that the zoning of the area where PY was planned didn't allow that kind of usage, so Pulte had to request a variance. The variance process involves negotiations between the city and the developer, in which the city is supposed to insist on concessions that will ameliorate the non-conforming development's impact. The possible concessions don't have to correspond to requirements that happen to exist in the zoning rules. So just as the city was able to make the HOA run a shuttle service, they could have required reserved parking spaces for units without a garage, even though the Zoning Ordinance doesn't require reserved parking in any zone.

Unlikely. The reason a certain number of homes w/out garages and driveways are an approved part of the development plan is to DISCOURAGE USE OF VEHICLES. Local government wants people in densely populated areas to be like New Yorkers - don't own a car, take public transportation, a cab or Uber. So don't buy a home without a place to keep your vehicle if you plan to keep a vehicle.

[Anonymous]

I agree with your point. However, returning to our previous discussion, what is the purpose of having a HOA board if they do not work and are unable to correct issues such as the reserved parking spaces on Van Valkenburgh Lane?

[Anonymous]

The videos on YouTube of the plaintiff in this lawsuit screaming profanities are embarrassing. Nothing worse than a man who can’t control his emotions. Not a good look.

Shows that the lawsuit is based on emotion and anger rather than a level headed, sober analysis of the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with your point. However, returning to our previous discussion, what is the purpose of having a HOA board if they do not work and are unable to correct issues such as the reserved parking spaces on Van Valkenburgh Lane?

Are you referring to the video where the HOA president, who has two assigned parking spots, falsely stated that these parking spots are not common areas?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gNHsClUbBWDhnWwegXc1XR3aBPtSgwGQ/view?usp=sharing