Ron, unless you want to be sued, knock it off with the screwball accusations. POCA has never taken money or "screwed" its constituents. I am hopeful that FOTPIA's leaders and members will do the right thing to mitigate the impact on their rural community and historic Woodwardville. As someone who has been the subject of your inflammatory attacks many times, your accusations against Wendy are without merit.

Thanks for the headsup Jeff. It is my understading that you have a vacancy on the POCA Board. I would like to apply for that position. Please forward me the necessary information. Hopefully I will not have to file suit in order to be considered this time. It is also my understanding that the POCA Board has spent over $20,000 in order to keep me off the Ballot the last time this came up. For the record: you have my permission to release any and all information you have concerning the suit I filed and the cost to the community when all you had to do was let the homeowners decide. I am also curious as to whether or not POCA has authorized any legal fees in order to get the information you have talked about concerning this new development. It would be nice if you were as transparent as you acuse the developers of not being. In addition: it is my understanding that there arel pending suits against the POCA Board and that POCA is footing the legal bill for depositions you are going to give in at least one suit but that POCA's attorneys will not be paid to represent other Board members. I have attempted to find answers to all of these questions but I don't seem to be able to find them in the published minutes. As a homeowner don't I have a legal right to know what you are spending my dues on?

I too hope that FOTPIA's members will do the right thing and keep their promises to their constituents by not changing the over 55 agreement. Time will tell.

Once again Ron you are putting out false information and your understanding of facts are not correct. Perhaps you need to listen more carefully to the Board member who is disclosing confidential Association legal information to you. The meetings are open to all members and the minutes of those meetings are made available to all members on the web site and upon request. Contrary to your claim, POCA is not a defendant in any litigation and has spent no money keeping you off any ballot. After not running as a write-in candidate, and not exercising your right to be nominated at the Annual Meeting earlier this year, you filed various legal complaints against POCA which the Association answered and moved to dismiss all of them. POCA prevailed on all of them. The court dismissed all your claims with prejudice and the case is now closed. See http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiryDetail.jis?caseId=02C12167820&loc=60&detailLoc=CC. It is unfortunate that we had to spend any money in defending the Association against your ridiculous and frivolous actions which were all summarily dismissed by the Court. For example, POCA had to pay about $1,000 for our attorney to appear at a hearing on June 14 that you failed to even show up for, at which the judge dismissed the case and all claims. Perhaps you are the one who should be explaining your actions to me and the rest of your neighbors and why you are wasting OUR money on such nonsense.

To say POCA has spent no money in keeping me off a ballot is absurd. You authorized POCA attornies to files answers and motions that I believe is in excess of $20,000 as of this date. You have my permission to disclose the exact amount to the world. As far as my filings go it is true that I did not show up at the last court hearing. As I explained several times in the past I was serving Jury Duty - I will never do that again and have filed complaints against the Bench for it's ruling. I lost my opportunity to be heard in court because I did my civic duty. You won nothing. Civic minded citizens lost because of your manipulation of the system. You spent POCA money in order to deny me a right to allow the homeowners to choose. You should be ashamed of yourself and the Board you temporarily serve on. You state that POCA has not spent anything and then admit that it cost US $1,000 to have POCA's attorney show up. You lie so much that it is a common place occurence.

Are going to accept my application for the vacancy on the Board or do I file another civil suit?

Stop playing with the english language. You are being deposed (?) because of your actions and the Boards actions in a civil suit. Although technically you and POCA are not being sued you appear to have authorized POCA to pay for your legal representation in that matter. Are you or are you not being deposed in a POCA related matter?

THANK GOD FOR WHISTLE BLOWERS! YOU CANN'T HIDE FOREVER!

I have no interest in allowing this board to be used for the airing of legal grievances and disputes. Take your complaints offline, Ron.

@Scotty Troll. The term "POCA Bob" on the photo of me with my lovely wife in our favorite booth at the Orchard Cafe is an inside joke because I am always working on something in the community, and was penned by a couple of Board members with whom I am friends as well as with my friends who are the owners and staff at that establishment. Leave it to someone like you to try to twist this into another personal attack. Go out and get a girlfriend for goodness sake. As far as appointments to the vacancy go, I'll be sure to personally nominate you and Mr. Grossman tonight to fill the vacancy and we'll see how the whole Board votes on them.

Tim - I asked for your help in starting a Blog addressing the issues here at POCA but you stated: "No Thanks". I have only responded to statements made by POCA Representatives and nothing else. If Jeff, or others, do not ask questions then I would not respond.

I would like to move on. How about closing this blog so that your fears can be aleveated. Hopefully you will not violate my rights to Freedom of Expression while you tolerate those of others. How about asking Mr. Andrade to leave my name off his rantings as he has made specific references towards legal issues and I have simply responded to them. Unless attacked again this will be my last response to this particular blogg.

As an answer to Scott D. - my understanding is that at least one Board member has bailed, another was forced off the Board, and yet another is ready to resign.

You're not the only one. It's madness AND greed!

EF what's changed is that (a) that there is a land covenant which among several other protections, includes a restriction to only 55+, that the developers are now trying to get lifted through revising the agreement with neighbors adjoining the property and (b) if that covenant restriction is lifted it significantly adds to the enrollments in the area schools, which is a brand new issue and (c) they are assuming the lifting of the age restriction before they have a deal and are proposing a school, new road through industrially-zoned areas, and a circuitous bus route all 7 mies away from the development - also a brand new issue. That is why people are upset now.

Rusty, the map is fairly clear if you are familiar with the area. I understand that people have different opinions on this, but it should be decided on the basis of facts and not misrepresentations and half truths.

One of the consistent messages from the folks that are against this is that the road will "split the park in half". Anyone who is familiar with the area and can read a map will notice that the area where the road intersects the park is a wooded area that is currently undeveloped because there is not enough land to do much with. If anything the road will Likely have a positive effect on traffic by slowing people down on Strawberry lake way. In addition, the developer will give back more land then they take.

The other item people frequently bring up is the safety of kids crossing this new road. Since there is currently only woods, there will likely be no kids crossing the road.

Finally, the developer may soon be able to switch to a non age restricted development without building the school simply because some of the nearby crofton schools will go under capacity. It's better to get the free school then to fight it and lose. Then you lose the age restricted development and the free school.

I understand some folks are against this, but let's keep the facts in mind.

I have no problems dealing with the facts. I haven't heard anyone say that the proposal will "split the park in half" but what I have heard is that it will go "through the park" -- which in fact it would.

The other point to keep in mind is that this new 4 lane road would bisect a very active recreational trail to the park along Strawberry Lake Way that is heavily used by families daily -- people walking dogs, kids on bikes and skateboards, moms and dads with strollers, walkers, and runners. It would be like taking Waugh Chapel Rd, or actually more like parts of Piney Orchard Parkway and their traffic and dropping it across this walking/bike path. Hopefully, reasonable people can agree that this raises safety concerns compared to what currently exists now.

Finally, the developer is NOT able to build non-age-restricted homes no matter what happens with changes at the Crofton and other schools because covenants on the land prohibit this. Unless members of the Forks of the Patuxent Improvement Association agree to remove this covenant, and currently they have not, the school is not even necessary. If they do agree to amend the covenant, then Two Rivers housing would be subject to the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, and development approval would depend on whether schools serving that area were open or closed.

Jeff, are you certain that it is a four lane road they are proposing? That does seem like a bit of overkill.

Regarding my point about the age restriction. See the link below:
http://odenton.patch.com/articles/two-rivers-project-could-move-forward-even-without-school

Your points about the safety of people on the trail just seem contrived to me. There is already a trail that runs nearly the length of strawberry lake way and it does not appear to be a safety hazard, why would this one be so unsafe? Additionally, kids and families bike on the trails that cross piney orchard parkway (a four lane road) all the time. We did when I lived there.

Again, it just seems to me that the folks that are opposed to this are taking some legitimate concerns that I'm sure can be addresses, and sensationalizing them to make it appear that there will be speeding cars careening our of control and endangering woman and children.

I thought I suggested a Citizens Coalition a long time ago. Guess that it has to come from another source. Wanna bet that PATCH will block any blog that is
anti-HOA Boards?

@Chris, none of this is hyperbole or sensationalism. Look at the traffic on Waugh Chapel or Piney Orchard Parkway and then visualize that traffic crossing the current recreational path, which is heavily used by Piney Orchard families. Most users do not cross the one part of the path that crosses Strawberry Lake Way, they go up to the park, walk within the park trails and come back or use the connecting trails off the park. Secondly, do your homework and look at the land records -- there is a covenant that currently limits Two Rivers to 55+ and caps the number of units. The developers were not initially forthcoming about this, the old Patch article you cited got it wrong, we raised it at our meeting at Piney Orchard, and it is clearly mentioned in the story above. Not sure why you are being such a shill for the developers and trying to confuse people on the facts.

Jeff - Per your response to Chris: isn't a shill someone that constantly uses the 750+ proxies in order to stack the POCA Board in there favor?

Jeff, I may be mistaken but if they provided traffic impact analysis docs to the county planning, if believe that falls in the area of the public domain. With filling out the proper paperwork can be obtained.

Many of the road plats are online on state or county websites. I

i think he would make a great County Executive. Hope he runs, wins AND that the new council has the opportunity to hold him liable for his actions as he is trying to get passed now.

False. They will use barely one acre of land and will give back two. The park will gain land.

Here are a few other facts that people are overlooking in their emotional responses:

1. The development is already approved as a 55 and over community, so if they do not approve the zoning changes, there will still be over 1500 new houses built. Nothing can stop that.

2. All of the land in question' except for a tiny fraction where the Land would join strawberry lake way is outside of piney orchard. It is either owned by the developer, or the previously mentioned small part of the park.

3. This will not "disect" piney orchard.

4. Despite what people may think, Gork Park is not part of piney orchard. The park predates PO by many years.

Chris, nobody is trying to limit what is available to others nor did the development of Piney Orchard cause the crowded roads. Included in the costs of our new homes in PO were over $50 million in front foot infrastructure fees that we sll pay for 30 years, tens of millions in impact fees and recordation fees on our 4,500+ homes, a school agreement that included land and money for a new school within our community, the conversion of a former mining site into a nature preserve, road improvements on Waugh Chapel and Piney Orchard Parkway to "urban arterial standards", and assumption of road maintenance costs within all PO subdivsions. If all those impact funds provided were not used by County Government for their intended purposes, don't blame it on the residents here. The problem now is that new growth is not being well-managed, developers are trying to get around current restrictions, and nobody is focusing on necessary improvements to the infrastructure for this new development. Also, in case you haven't noticed there is currently an oversupply of housing in West County which has kept home prices from rebounding around here as they have elsewhere in Maryland, even AA County. Let's get the hundreds of homes that are currently on the market sold before building thousands more new ones.

Jeff - it appears as if your true agenda is in keeping the apartments in POCA full before opportunities arise for those renters to own homes. Does this have to do with the 750+ proxies they vote in your favor?

Why hasn't the 21st Delegation made their position(s) known. These are the people that are supposedly elected to represent all of us. It's bad enought that they voted to have AA County lose 23 milion i expected revenues by voting FOR the new casino in PG County but why are they staying quite about this. Wouldn't it be nice if they requested the documents 'officially' rather than have us pay to go to court.

Rebecca - if you want to protest consider doing it to State Representative Jim Rosopeppe (sp?) and the 21st Delegation.

Rebecca,

I have nothing against PO. I know several people that live there and i lived across from Gork Park for over 6 years and my kids were very active at the park. I do have a problem with the knee jerk reaction that some people have.

I also have a problem with all of the Hyperbole. Its fine if you have your reasons to oppose this project, but it is not ok when some people deliberately try to stoke people's fear.

Now, although Piney Orchard did not cause ALL the traffic problems in the area, PO was certainly part of the problem. The recent work to widen PO parkway is evidence enough of that.
Land owners also have rights. They have a right to develop their land. County regulations ensure that development occurs where there is adequate school capacity. If a developer want to build a school that will reduce the amount of Money we need to pay in taxes, they have my support.

Finally, unless you live in a cocoon, you will notice that there are a ton of new developments in the Odenton area. This is the culmination of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) and the town center concept for odenton which has been in the pipeline for years. The bottom line is that you moved to an area poised to grow enormously.

Perhaps you did not do your homework when you moved here. The bottom line is that grown is coming.

BTW,

I bet that many Odenton residents had similar thoughts when the the road that their park was on (Francis Station rd.) was connected to PO and renamed Strawberry Lake Way.

Until that point GORC was on a road with no outlet and very little traffic.

@Chris, guess what BRAC 2005 was done last year.http://tinyurl.com/BRACstory. All the moves are done. The politicians lied. No streets of gold. No new jobs. No huge demand for housing. No transit center. Just more cars on the road going in and out of Ft. Meade to other places.

Chris W,

In Anne Arundel county, landowners do not have the right to develop land outside of what the zoning codes allow. Read the county code - anything not explicitly permitted for development is prohibited.

These laws are supposed to ensure that land use is centrally planned and makes coherent sense from a big picture.

Yet, what we end up with is 4-land roads through parks, schools within 2 miles of each other, and new landfills directly adjacent to highly dense townhomes and apartments.

It seems that there are a class of people who can do what they want, and a class of people who pay for it. Guess which side you and I are on.

I was not writing specifically about you, but some of the commenters on this and many of the other stories regarding their project. It was not my intention of accuse you of anything or to offend you.

Rebecca, I have a similar experience as your neighbor in Piney Orchard. I had no idea any of these things - the Cunningham landfill, the road, the school, were going to be within a few hundred feet of my property when I move here 7 years ago. Now it's being portrayed as a done deal without any local political involvement.

Good point, however the houses will be built either way. They already have the approval they need for the 55 and over. The traffic on patuxent river road and PO parkway will increase.

The problem is that there are only so many ways to get from the bigger north/south roadways like rout 3 and 170. At least this would add another.

I'm sure the developer is just doing what his attorneys are advising him to do in order to move on. It will get built. Incentives will be given to those that make the decisions and your vote means nothing.