Howard County has declined to reconfigure the 13th hole at the county-owned Timbers at Troy golf course in Elkridge, disappointing nearby residents whose homes have been pelted with errant golf shots.

The residents, whose homes on Sandy Ridge Court in the Lyndwood community flank the problematic hole, met with Howard County officials in March to discuss the ongoing problem of golf balls hitting their houses, breaking windows and, in general, creating a safety hazard in their back yards.

But whatever hopes they had for help from the county were dashed when Recreation and Parks Director Gary Arthur, in a letter this month, wrote that the county would not be altering the hole to protect their homes.

Wilson Chan, one of the neighbors who sought safety enhancements at the course, said he’s unsure what his next step will be and frustrated at the county’s unwillingness to help.

“I love this neighborhood. I don’t want to move,” he said. “It’s a real shame with all the tax dollars we pay that (the county) can’t do anything to help us out, especially when it’s a safety issue.”

At a meeting with Arthur in mid-March, Chan and his neighbors asked if the county would move the tee farther down the fairway, likely changing it from a par 4 to a par 3.

At the meeting, Arthur told the residents that each homeowner assumed responsibility for the potential perils of living next to a golf course.

Covenants tied to the course and the surrounding Lyndwood property state that homeowners “assumed the risk of injury to or death of persons and of damage to property resulting from the use of the golf course by other persons in a reasonable manner.”

Arthur also told residents that it was unlikely the county could afford to alter the course — or would want to.

He confirmed that decision in his letter. After consulting with a golf course management company, Arthur concluded that changing the 13th hole to a par 3 “would be a detriment to the operation of the Timbers course, causing fewer rounds and potentially impacting our ability to pay the debt service on the bonds.”

Timbers at Troy, paid for through revenue bonds with a 22-year debt service, is intended to support itself.

In the letter, Arthur added that if the residents decided to put up nets or plant trees as a barrier between their houses and the course, the county would not pay for the changes but could refer the residents to companies and landscaping contractors.

“As I indicated to you at the meeting, we will continue our outreach to golfers publicizing on our receipts and with outside signage that they are responsible for their golf shots,” Arthur’s letter states.

“Additionally, if you see a golfer hit a ball that damages your property, please call the club house immediately and we will assist in identifying him or her.”

Landon Davies, a resident who serves on the Lyndwood Association’s board of directors, said the homeowner’s association will be discussing the issue at its next meeting in May.

“We understand the safety issues,” he said. “We’d like to find a solution to protect everybody.”

Davies said the association contacted the golf course to attempt to address the situation several years ago. At that time, the course installed warning signs near the 13th tee, alerting golfers that they were responsible for damage caused by their golf balls.

Davies added that a resident across the fairway from Sandy Ridge Court erected a net with the association’s approval in 2008 — one of two requests the association has granted in recent years.

Davies said the homeowner’s association, which reviews residents’ applications for architectural changes such as safety nets, is open to requests “within reason” regarding the size and style of netting. He said it would be up to the residents to pay for, install and maintain the netting.

Sandy Ridge Court resident Julie Morrogh, who said earlier requests by residents to install netting had been turned down by the association, said she plans to attend the association’s meeting in May and to examine the possibility of protective netting or other solutions to their problem.

She added that she still believes the county should share the burden of fixing the problem.

“We certainly made mistakes in buying and building on this piece of land,” Morrogh said. “But, on the other hand, Howard County approved building on this land. We were silly, but they were short-sighted as well.”

---

user comments (6)

user dogma128 says...

What a classic comment by Ms. Morrogh!!! Apparently it's the counties fault for letting them build on the land. It's a golf course for crying out loud. There are hundreds of golf courses in the United States and hundreds of communities surrounding these golf courses. Other communities work around these issues, why can't the Lyndwood community. You knew what you were getting into when you purchased or built a house on this land because it was stated in your Covenant. The county is at no fault in allowing people to build houses on the property around the golf course. I wonder how many of these complaining homeowers actually use the facilities at Timbers. I wonder how many of them go out after hours and work on their short game at the holes that are nearby the homes. The county made the correct decision on not helping out these homeowners.

Posted 9:13 AM, 04.21.09 | Permalink

user citizentaxpayerjane says...

If someone builds on a prior toxic waste dump and you purchase the home, whose fault is it? You should have known that was a dump by the look/smell/etc.. The point is that these people trusted local govt to know it was safe precisely because other communities exist and the taxpayer paid planning employees are supposed to know these things, not home buyers. At what point is it too close for you, Dogma? Is there any scenarion in which the homebuyer is not responsible? We don't need any of the DPZ employees if we can't rely on their expertise. Let's save bucks and just rubber stamp all development.

Posted 11:56 AM, 04.21.09 | Permalink

user dogma128 says...

citizentaxpayerjane, I think you have my choice of wording wrong. The homebuyer should be responsible in all scenarios, I never said they shouldn't. When you buy something that is hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars then you should do your research and find out what you are getting into. Seems pretty irresponisble if you don't. Compairing a prior toxic waste dump site to a golf course is like compairing bananas with lava. You can't compair the two. Certainly the government (whether local, state, or federal) should have some say in the zoning of land for use and they should step in when prior toxic waste dumps are proposed for homebuilding. A golf course is a different story as well as this whole story in the first place. Timbers golf course was there before the home were even built. Seems to me that people all over the United States flock to live in houses that reside around golf course. So the county in all their collective wisdom, said, "hey let's zone this land for homebuilding, we know people will purchase the land and it will be a thriving community for the county. The companies that build the homes also know that people jump at the chance to live in a golf course community so they said, "let's put bids in to build houses for this community, we will make a ton of money." I for one would jump at the chance to live in a golf course community, but I don't have the money to pay the premium for living in golf course community (as these homes are usually valued higher than most in the area). I would also understand the risks associated with living in a golf course community and I would also realize that not all golfers are of the caliber of a player that Tiger Woods is. Just because he can control a little white ball on television doesn't mean that everyone can. Certainly people put their trust in local govt officials to act and do the right things for them or by them, but at the end of the day it is individual that has final say in everything. Remember you are talking about govt officials and we know how well govt officials can be trusted. Their end of the day is quite different then the end of the day for the citizens that they service. Maybe we shouldn't put so much trust in these individuals. Dogma

Posted 3:00 PM, 04.21.09 | Permalink

user dogma128 says...

One more thing, The safety of building homes by a golf course in this case is negated by the following fact that is pointed out in the article: Covenants tied to the course and the surrounding Lyndwood property state that homeowners “assumed the risk of injury to or death of persons and of damage to property resulting from the use of the golf course by other persons in a reasonable manner.” What further measures can be done by the local govt to warn individuals about the dangers of buying a house on a golf course? Seems like it is pretty clear in the convenant. I guess maybe we should ask our govt officials to hold our hands when we cross the street each day and remind us that we need to look both ways before we cross. Safety is not the issue here, the homeowners knew what they were getting into prior to building or purchasing homes on this property and if they didn't then they should have because they paid a premium to own a home near a golf course. Dogma

Posted 3:48 PM, 04.21.09 | Permalink

user independent says...

Dogma, Jane are both correct - we cannot trust local government to enforce the safety standards in place. Many decisions by the council and other local bodies do not represent the residents sufficiently. Voters thus far have decided they're partisan as a priority. Voter focus on constituency priorities would allow intelligent, honest, energetic third party candidates a shot at representing us, which we do not have.

Posted 8:03 AM, 04.23.09 | Permalink

user coreyad5 says...

This is exactly the result that is right. The golf course was there first. The Timbers wont set a standard for other ignorant communities around the country.

Posted 11:31 AM, 05.03.09 | Permalink