Maybe the author of that article should check into the past activity of a certain Ken Ulman, who has shown a penchant for retroactive meddling in land development affairs.
Example #1: The Comp Sketch application submitted by General Growth Properties (S-05-03 is hte DPZ file reference). Mr. Ulman with some help from Mr. Guzzone and Ms. Tammy Citara Manis (chairperson of the Planning Board, and campaign contributor to Ken Ulman) blocked consideration of the application because they "wanted more details". Even though the application materials all FULLY complied with the laws (which have not been changed), they continued the application for abouta dozen public meetings and ultimately never took action on it (I think GGP kind of withdrew it since it was obvious that the Board was holding the application hostage).
Example #2: A business on Route 108 in Clarksville wanted to expand and build a new building. The property has two frontages; one on Route 108 and one on a side street. The zoning laws REQUIRED that access be from the lower classified road. However, that road also serves some residences (on the opposite side of the road however). Ulman introduced a law to cut off the business's access to the side road, and forcing access to be on Route 108, where there are already several driveway entrances on either side, creating a confusing and dangerous stretch of exiting and entering vehicles onto Route 108. In cutting off the second access AFTER the site plan had been submitted (the revisions probably cost the owner many thousands of dollars), Ulman not only created a more dangerous stretch of Route 108, he also de-valued the property.
Maybe someone could check into these examples as well.
Gee, another logical argumnet for fairness. But, the question will be does logic defeat illogical passion.
ReplyDeleteBravo!
ReplyDeleteMaybe the author of that article should check into the past activity of a certain Ken Ulman, who has shown a penchant for retroactive meddling in land development affairs.
ReplyDeleteExample #1: The Comp Sketch application submitted by General Growth Properties (S-05-03 is hte DPZ file reference). Mr. Ulman with some help from Mr. Guzzone and Ms. Tammy Citara Manis (chairperson of the Planning Board, and campaign contributor to Ken Ulman) blocked consideration of the application because they "wanted more details". Even though the application materials all FULLY complied with the laws (which have not been changed), they continued the application for abouta dozen public meetings and ultimately never took action on it (I think GGP kind of withdrew it since it was obvious that the Board was holding the application hostage).
Example #2: A business on Route 108 in Clarksville wanted to expand and build a new building. The property has two frontages; one on Route 108 and one on a side street. The zoning laws REQUIRED that access be from the lower classified road. However, that road also serves some residences (on the opposite side of the road however). Ulman introduced a law to cut off the business's access to the side road, and forcing access to be on Route 108, where there are already several driveway entrances on either side, creating a confusing and dangerous stretch of exiting and entering vehicles onto Route 108. In cutting off the second access AFTER the site plan had been submitted (the revisions probably cost the owner many thousands of dollars), Ulman not only created a more dangerous stretch of Route 108, he also de-valued the property.
Maybe someone could check into these examples as well.
"a logical argumnet (sic)"???? Lane (aka Wordbones) is simply inflammatory, not logical!
ReplyDelete