Home-business controversy continues in Lansdowne
By Elizabeth Coe
Lansdowne residents, members of the board of directors and those who operate home businesses remain involved in a controversy concerning what types of businesses should be allowed in the community.In May, the board voted to enforce the covenants of the community, which do not allow home businesses to operate.
A hearing was held June 27 to discuss an amendment, which would further define what kinds of home businesses or offices would be permitted.
During the hearing, Rory Clark, attorney for several day-care providers in the community mentioned a recent Virginia Supreme Court decision, Scott v. Walker, from June 8, which interpreted a covenant in a Bedford County community on residential use of property in favor of free use of the property for the homeowners.
This case is similar to the situation in Lansdowne, he said, where the covenants, which specifically disallow "commercial" businesses, are vaguely written and ambiguous when it comes to home day care, which day-care providers say is a residential use of the property.
"The rule of law is that if it's ambiguous, people are entitled to free use of the property," Clark said. "It's illegal and improper for the board to attempt to restrict the day-care providers."
Media representatives were barred from attending the June 27 meeting, which was open to residents only.
Members of the Lansdowne board of directors deferred all questions to their attorney, Ken Chadwick, who did not return several calls for comment in time for the Times-Mirror's deadline.
In the past, board members have said they would discriminate between businesses that draw "a significant amount" of traffic to the neighborhood, which would be considered illegal, and home offices or people working from home, which would be allowed.
Home day cares that care for children from outside the home would be considered an illegal home business, board members have said.
Rory Clark, who represents five day-care providers in the community – Oksana Downs, Fulvia Dibenedetto, Patricia Warner, Jamie White and Heba El-Sharkawi -- said the amendment proposed by members of the board, which included the suggestion of limiting day-care businesses to four children each, was an attempt to compromise, but not a good one.
"If the board attempts to preclude day care, we'll initiate an action in court to have a determination made by a judge," he said. "Because it threatens the livelihood of these people they have no choice. They're being forced to defend their rights."
Contact the reporter at ecoe@timespapers.com