|
Montebello Condominium Unit Owners Association |
|
Advisory committee on Landscape Design and Management |
|
Committee Meeting |
|
1) The Chairman called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m.
Members present: 7
Members Absent: None
Board Liaison: Present
2) The minutes of the March 16 meeting were reviewed and approved unanimously.
3) Expansion of Committee’s Terms of Reference. The Chairman reported that, in various discussions among and between Board members and Committee members, there was a proposal that our TOR be expanded to include the woods
4) She reviewed information already gathered by the Committee including a study conducted by the Virginia Department of Forestry of our wooded area. (The Montebello-specific portion of this study was distributed at the meeting.)
5) The Committee then discussed the possible components of an expanded terms of reference as well as the implications for our work. The Chairman identified possible components of an expanded TOR as follows:
A. Soil analysis; B. Vegetation Study – what stays; what goes and what replaces “what goes;” schedule; tree inventory? C. Prioritization of turf areas for curb appeal; D. Replacement of turf areas where desirable; E. Invasives (interior), e.g., wisteria; F. Invasives (wooded area) – replacement program, e.g., hardwood saplings? G. What happens with fallen trees? H. Habitat considerations; and I. Maintenance contract implications/detailed contract specifications.
She also noted that, while we had encountered some difficulty finding potential landscape designers/architects, the Environmental Resource Manager at Reston, recommended Natural Resource, Inc., as a firm that seemed to share our orientation and would be qualified to work on our project. The Chair reported that, in initial discussions with NRI, they would be interested and, with the assumption that we could move along with the schedule we envisaged, available to work with us. Barbara reported that they would be willing to do a walkabout at no charge without obligation on either side. There was no objection to inviting NRI for a walkabout.
6) All comments were in favor of the motion. A number of points were noted:
A. Committee reports to the BOD have highlighted problems in the woods that require attention. B. The consultants’ reports have narrowed our focus in the turf areas and opened up the wooded areas as of immediate concern. This would help make the Committee’s work manageable. C. Ideally, we would want to deliver to the BOD a statement of policy/philosophy about the landscape (including the wooded areas), a plan for its management, and cost estimates. An immediate “fix-it” approach would be a mistake without knowing the anticipated end result. D. Both consultants recognized the prized nature of our wooded areas in an otherwise urban setting. As a distinguishing feature of our community, if we failed to include the wooded area in our work, we might do some harm to our property values. E. If we wait to act, costs are only likely to rise.
|
|
The Chairman reported that, in various discussions among and between Board members and Committee members, there was a proposal that our TOR be expanded to include the woods |
April 24, 2006 |
