Responsibility of road, dam defers action by New Kent planning commission

New Kent’s Planning Commission has deferred action regarding an application for a developer to maintain a private road in the Patriot’s Landing subdivision.

Patriot’s Landing Management Corporation applied for a Planned Use Development (PUD) permit to make one of the roads in the subdivision private after Virginia’s Department of Transportation and the county declined to take responsibility for any damages to the road due to its location on a dam. However, concern arose from the Patriot’s Landing Homeowners’ Association over the responsibility.

“The homeowners are concerned over who would be responsible for the upkeep and maintaining the roadway,” said Susan Tarley, a lawyer representing the association. “All other roadways in Phase I [first homeowners in the subdivision] are maintained by VDOT.

“There are issues related to reliability and responsibility,” she continued. “There are also issues that homeowners are concerned, including access as a secondary road and who actually owns the property for that road.”

Homeowners echoed the comments of the lawyer, fearing action taken by the planning commission would affect them financially.

“VDOT doesn’t want responsibility and the county doesn’t want responsibility, so why do we [homeowners] want that responsibility?” asked Kimberly Moyer. “The dam is a huge cost and as a homeowner, I don’t think we should be responsible for it if it breaks.”

“I’m concerned about the liability and the maintenance,” chimed in David Rosner. “To put a road on this homeowner’s association would only mean we would come back to ask the county for help to maintain it.”

Homeowner’s association president Todd Thomas said more concerns stem from ownership and responsibility.

“We don’t want reliability down the road,” he said. “The management corporation is proposing for a road and a sewer to run through the dam.

“I want to see more formal documentation,” he added. “I know we own at least one-half of the secondary dam and we are not going to allow access for them to access it unless we come to an agreement.”

County attorney Michele Gowdy advised commissioners of information she received among the problems between the association and developer. The three issues include transfer of the operation and maintenance certificate, language in the proposal to declare the transfer to homeowners, and access to secondary roads, including for emergency reasons.

Developer attorney Brandon Keene addressed commissioners, saying that current contractual proposals say that the 38 lots in Phase II would be responsible to maintain the road and dam, compared to the 151 homes in Phase I. However, commissioner Michael Lane voiced disdain for that plan.

“This hits home closer to me than any of my comrades,” said the commissioner who lives in the subdivision. “If you would have contacted the homeowner association months ago, we could have resolved this.

“There is no way I can support this right now,” he continued. “I want to see some bond protections and funds so that the homeowner’s association doesn’t have liability for this.”

“I would feel more comfortable with an emergency action plan,” added commissioner Richard Kontny Jr. “I have a lot of questions on the safety side, especially when the developer is proposing to run a water line in the dam.”

Chairman Jack Chalmers asked if lawyers from both sides could work out an agreement within the next 30 days. Both lawyers agreed they could.

“This is as far as it will go out,” said Chalmers. “This issue will be resolved in 30 days before we send our recommendation to the supervisors.”