New Proposed Architectural Rules. Please Review

[MattWarner]

Hello everyone,

Attached you will find proposed, new architectural rules. The current architectural rules were last reformed in 2008, and the Board saw some need for updates and improvements. Items that are becoming popular like car chargers and solar panels needed more guidance. Given the rigorous process that Fairfax County requires for its permitting, we also tried to focus the Architectural Control Committee's (ACC) job toward ensuring the aesthetic quality of project, consistent with the neighborhood's aesthetics. The proposed rules also streamline the process and remove ACC review where it isn't necessary. While the Declaration of Covenants allows the ACC 30 days for review, the new rules currently suggest that the ACC must send an update to the applicant regarding its review applicant by day 15 if the ACC needs the full 30 days to review.

These rules have not been adopted yet. We post here to give the community time to review the rules and discuss any portion that it finds controversial or merely discussion worthy. Please weigh-in with your thoughts so that we can have the strongest document possible when we adopt the new rules. The Board could adopt the rules as early as the April 26, 2021 Board meeting if there are no major controversies to resolve with these rules by that date.

Finally, the Board would like to recognize everyone who worked so hard to get the rules to their current state. This took a lot of work from a lot of people. Special shoutout to Cathy Ganek and Debra Donnelly for spear-heading this effort.

Please let us know your thoughts about any or all of the new rules in the replies to this posting.

Best,

[MattWarner]

Some folks are having difficulty opening an MSWord version of the document, so I'm also attaching a pdf here.

[MattWarner]

latest version of the proposed architectural guidelines is attached (Mar. 25, 2021) (first attachment is a pdf version; second, MSWord). Integrated some suggested edits, which are visible in tracked changes.

Thanks for the feedback. Keep it coming, as this document could affect the neighborhood for a long time.

Best,

[rosenbaj]

What was the logic behind removing the section on storage pods? It seemed like a useful thing to have in the guidelines.

[MattWarner]

Seemed redundant of Section 2.14. I can add the language of storage pods to that section to be sure.

[rosenbaj]

To me, Section 2.14 looks like it just applies to construction material, where storage pods are often used for random junk. Also, Section 2 is for maintenance, and people might not think of them as a maintenance standard. I like the idea of mentioning pods in 2.14 but also putting them back in Section 3.

[rosenbaj]

In Section 1.3, I would prefer to say that the ACC must reply within 30 days (instead of 15 days) or the application is considered approved. Among other reasons, I think it is good to stay consistent with the Covenants which says 30 days (Article VIII). The ACC should make every effort to respond faster, but I prefer the official policy to be 30 days.

[rosenbaj]

In Section 3.11.b, a period is missing between "Modern" and "Storm": "Front door styles must be Traditional, Craftsman, or Modern Storm doors ..."

[MattWarner]

Thanks for the feedback, especially to Jennifer. Latest version attached.

We obviously disagree with the 15/30 day versus 30-only time period for the ACC's review. A couple of points in defense of the 15 day rule as it appears in the draft:
1) We are allowed to do better than the 30 day window set by the Declaration of Covenants. That is merely a mandatory floor of behavior to stop complete negligence.
2) ACC can still have the full 30 days under the proposed rule. They merely have the obligation to inform the applicant that more time is needed before the initial 15-day window closes.

I strongly believe this additional accountability is needed. I haven't been on the ACC long, but I believe more impetus than the status quo could spur faster turn around for those needing ACC review of their projects. As someone who has wanted to begin a project and waited on ACC turn around before moving on with the project, only to have the application granted because 30 days have passed, I can say first hand that it would have been nice to receive an acknowledgement at some point indicating that my application is being looked at but more time is needed for diligent consideration. I think that that cost/benefit to the community justifies one extra email from the ACC.

Respectfully,

[MattWarner]

Hi everyone,

Attached is the latest version of the proposed architectural rules. Changes in tracked changes. These will likely be voted on by the Board at the next meeting: Monday, Apr. 26.

Thanks,