Well, I had a whole different headline and lead written for this story based around Royal Examiner’s acquisition of the four-letter communication between the Warren County government and the Lake Front Royal Property Owners Association (LFRPOA) regarding right-of-way easement acquisition to facilitate subdivision entranceway improvements as part of a state-local Rural Addition Program (RAP) revenue sharing agreement.

But as this reporter was awaiting a response from Warren County Deputy Administrator Robert Childress regarding a proposed photo-op trip to the project site this reply was received late in the afternoon of Thursday, May 24 – “the trip may not be needed now.  We have a signed Deed for the ROW & Easement in hand from the LFR POA.  It came in today while I was out.”

Funny how things can work out with a little public scrutiny brought to bear as happened three days earlier.  As Royal Examiner readers will recall, on Monday, May 21, Childress told the Lake Front Royal Sanitary District Advisory Board that he felt he had “exhausted all options” in trying to get a reply from the POA board on a right-of-way easement request.

That frustration came 2-1/2 months after Childress’s initial communications to the POA board regarding their granting of the easement; and following nearly four weeks of silence in the wake of Childress’s forwarding details of the VDOT Rural Addition Program plan and process to the POA Board of Director’s in response to a request for additional information. See Related Story

According to information provided by Childress to the sanitary district advisory board on May 21, one more property owner’s signature is required after the POA’s.  He said initial indications were that lady with property on Creek Road would sign her ROW easement once the eight other involved property owners had all signed off.

However, in another recent Facebook post about the project a woman presenting herself to be that ninth property owner expressed concern about sacrificing any of her property for a ROW easement to the project.  We hope to have an update on this final piece of the nine-part, right-of-way easement puzzle shortly.

But far be it from this reporter to abandon an entire day’s work tracing the history of the communications, or lack thereof, preceding the developments of May 24.  Below is that history as written before notice that the LFRPOA Board of Directors had finally agreed to grant the required right-of-way easement on their entranceway property.

So, with a nod to actor Paul Newman’s character in the classic 1960’s film “Cool Hand Luke” we will explore the communications leading to the May 24 LFRPOA Board of Director’s granting of its right-of-way easement.

A ‘failure to communicate’

What began on March 7 as a simple request for a temporary construction easement to allow long-sought improvements to the entranceway to the Lake Front Royal subdivision to begin this summer appears to have evolved into a “Mexican Standoff” between the subdivision Property Owners Association (POA) and the Warren County government.

At stake is realization of a project the Lake Front Royal Property Owners Association (LFRPOA) signed off on in 2014 “as in the best interest of the community”, as well as the potential loss of an estimated $350,000 in subdivision and county funds already committed to the state-local revenue sharing project.

As background, there appears to be ongoing hostility and distrust on the POA side over the County’s 2016 move to create the Lake Front Royal Sanitary District.  Some then POA board members expressed a belief the County had colluded with a minority of Lake Front Royal property owners to achieve the sanitary district designation.

It is a designation which brings the county into more direct management and maintenance of subdivision property.  As one long-time resident observed critically of the POA board of directors at a May 21 Lake Front Royal Advisory Board meeting – “they want to act like it’s a power struggle.”  The sanitary district advisory board was appointed after the then-LFRPOA board declined to participate in any advisory capacity to the county on sanitary district operations.

As reported in our initial story generated by discussion at that May 21 advisory board meeting, the POA responded to the March 7 ROW request from Deputy County Administrator Robert Childress with a request for additional information.

Royal Examiner has now obtained copies of the four-letter written exchange between the County and POA beginning on March 7 and ending on April 24.

Childress’ letter of March 7, with attached documentation, explains the Virginia Department of Transportation Rural Addition Project in question as encompassing a 0.14-mile stretch within which “VDOT will replace the Sloat Creek drainage structure and reconstruct the roadway from Route 522 to its intersection with Creek Road.  A small section of Creek Road on both sides of Lake Front Road will also be improved to ensure a smooth intersection tie in.”  Childress notes inclusion of a “project location map” as a graphic reference on the project.

From one end to the other – the view of Lake Front Drive looking toward Rt. 522 – the mailboxes and parking area are to left. Photos /Roger Bianchini

The deputy county administrator’s six-paragraph letter elaborates on the current necessity for the POA to sign off on a deed of dedication allowing VDOT right-of-way access for the construction project that will bring the Lake Front Royal entranceway road into the state transportation system for future maintenance – taking responsibility for such maintenance out of the hands of both the POA and the county government.

Childress cites the County’s responsibility to provide VDOT the necessary construction easement, noting, “When Lake Front Royal was originally developed a 50-foot right-of-way was provided.  However, at that time the declaration deed and plat stated in part that ‘all roads are private’ even though they were open to the public.”

That “all roads are private” wording counters VDOT’s need that its temporary right-of-way easement “be dedicated to public use” – “thus the need for the new deed of dedication,” Childress wrote the POA board.

Looking up Lake Front Drive toward its intersection with Creek Road

Unlike the County letter, which is signed by Childress as “Deputy County Administrator”, neither of the POA responses dated March 11 and 12 carry an individual signature or officers’ name or title.  Rather, they are all signed “Sincerely, LFR POA BOD”. (Lake Front Royal Property Owners Association Board of Directors)

The March 11 LFR POA BOD three-paragraph response acknowledges receipt of the County request, noting it will be forwarded to an attorney for review.  It also expresses “an immediate concern” – the absence of specific dates for the temporary easement on what is described as just under 8/10’s of an acre of the POA property (.791 of an acre to be precise).

As we previously reported, the POA property in question is its approximately 15-acres near the entranceway containing the lake, common area, parking lot, mailboxes and school bus pickup near the subdivision entrance off Lake Front Road.  According to Childress the requested ROW encompasses about a 15-foot slice of that POA property adjacent to the road that has already been earmarked by the POA for right-of-way for the project.

A look at the entranceway bridge over Sloat Creek earmarked for replacement as part of the VDOT revenue-sharing, Rural Addition Project.

The POA board adds that in addition to specific dates, it wants “a copy of the site plans and the temporary access plans to review in advance” of an anticipated meeting with the county, adding, “A picture of the plat is not sufficient.  You will need to explain, in advance of the meeting, how this affects the mailboxes, utilities, parking lot maintenance, and existing fence and what will be done to return those areas to their original condition.”

The final POA communication to the Deputy County Administrator came on March 12, one day after their initial response.  It acknowledges an attorney’s review of the March 7 letter and adds two basic questions to its initial inquiry, along with another request for additional VDOT documentation.

First, the POA asks the status of other “right-of-way/easement dedications from the property owners involved along Lake Front and Creek Roads”; and second, if there was a public hearing on the project where VDOT officials discussed the planned upgrades, when that meeting was held, how was the public notified and are minutes of the meeting available?

The POA concludes its five-paragraph query, adding, “We would like to review the V-DOT documents detailing their Project Purpose and Project Details that should have been published” requesting a final response with the additional VDOT documentation “at your earliest convenience.”

The final communication in response to the POA queries came from Childress on April 24 – the lag time explained by the necessity of acquiring the requested information from VDOT, Childress notes in the preface of his reply.

The short version of the 2-1/2-page reply focused on the March 12 questions is: “a majority of the needed ROW easements have been obtained” (on May 21 it was stated one woman on Creek Road had not yet signed, but had indicated she would once all other ROW’s had been acquired); and there was no public hearing on the project because one is not legally required because the project was “originally requested by the POA through the County” and “VDOT is not obtaining any additional right-of-way or easements” that were not originally committed to road maintenance by the subdivision.

However, there is much additional detail related to the initial, pre-legal review query of March 11.

As to specific dates of work, Childress says VDOT’s “current schedule is to begin the box culvert construction on August 4, 2018 with roadway construction beginning soon afterward” and that without major weather delays “ VDOT anticipates approximately 60 days for completion of construction”.  However, he adds that VDOT was looking to “advance its schedule if the required right-of-way becomes available.”  Childress explained during the May 21 sanitary district advisory board meeting that the desire was to complete the project during the summer break from school to avoid any issues with the school bus pick up site near the subdivision entrance.

The deputy county administrator and former VDOT official notes that no site plan is available for review because “For a relatively simple roadway reconstruction project such as this, VDOT does not generally develop detailed design plans” and that the project has been developed using VDOT’s “no plan-minimum plan” concept.

However, Childress notes inclusion of “a copy of the roadway plan, typical section, and box culvert details,” as well as “a snap shot taken from Google Earth showing the box culvert and temporary detour locations, as well as a photo of a temporary detour on a similar project is provided for reference.”

As for impacts on the POA’s right-of-way easement Childress writes that, “The mailboxes, fencing, or any utilities will not be disturbed.  Parking lot maintenance should not be an issue during the summer construction season.  However, VDOT will ensure the small portion of the parking lot used for the temporary detour during construction is maintained.”

Childress also notes that “VDOT will restore any disturbed areas to their original condition at the end of construction.”

As for the POA’s request for “VDOT documents detailing their project purpose and project details that should have been published” Childress responds that “VDOT has no project purpose or detail documents other than the roadway plan, typical section, box culvert details, Google Earth snap shot, and temporary detail photo provided with this letter.”

Childress closes the April 24 reply noting a certain time urgency that he also addressed nearly a month later at the May 21 Lake Front Royal Advisory Board meeting.

“We hope this adequately addresses your questions and will allow us to meet to finalize the needed dedication of right-of-way and easements.  Please understand that under VDOT’s current revenue sharing policy, construction of a project must begin within 12 months of the award funding; failure to do so may jeopardize the construction of the funding for this important project.”

Childress cited July 1, 2017 as the date state funding was committed to the project.  So the failure to acquire the necessary easements by that date is viewed as a potential project killer – not to mention a $350,000 money pit for county and subdivision funding already paid to the state to allow planning and design work to begin.

In a Facebook post regarding Royal Examiner’s May 22 story on the sanitary district advisory board discussion of the previous day, former LFRPOA Board President Azlee Bates defended the current board and denied any “obstructionism” on the project.

She questioned the POA board’s receipt of the April 24 letter from Childress, stating, “I had a conversation with a BOD (board of directors) member a couple of weeks ago and the POA was waiting to hear back from the county. I’m not sure they’re in receipt of the April 24th letter, sent more than a month after the POA made an inquiry.”

Bates, who was president of the POA during its battle with the County over the sanitary district designation in 2016, observes, “This is a project initiated by the POA in 2014. At that time the POA faced a lot of backlash from the community who didn’t want the RAP (Rural Addition Project) and the bridge replacement, but went ahead with it because it was in the best interests of the community. Cute title here, but simply not true.”

We agree in part with Ms. Bates – “Cutting your nose off to spite whose face?” is a cute “title”.

However, we wonder at the lost opportunity for a POA board officer to inquire directly of Childress at the May 21 advisory board meeting, if not before, about a long-overdue reply, if it had not in fact been received two-and-a-half months after it was requested.  Discussion of the project status was part of the announced meeting agenda – a meeting at which Childress described numerous unsuccessful attempts to reach the POA board over the month since he presented VDOT’s project information to the same address as his initial ROW request of March 7.

But of course that all changed on May 24 – I guess they finally opened their mail for the month, I mean last month…