Posted: Mon, Aug 9 2010, 10:28 am EDT Post subject: Re: Sweetwater Construction (a.k.a. Old PNC Bank)
Before I insult you, let us make sure were talking about the same thing. Do you think it was a conflict of interest that his firm got a contract to design the school gym years after his wife had served on the board of Education. That seems to be the conflict inferred here. If that is what you are referring to you are correct, you don't know what a conflict is.
Posted: Mon, Aug 9 2010, 1:11 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Sweetwater Construction (a.k.a. Old PNC Bank)
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
I am the one who started the criticism of the Planning and HPAC boards here. I did not intend to infer some masterminded "plots", I think it is more accurate to say that the board members look out for their own self interests first (then hide behind "bad judgement")and use primarily their own undertsanding of what is best for the town (and refuse to listen to ALL of the residents).
In the case of HPAC, they certainly allow some deviations of their rules to slide with the appropriate bargaining chips or professional power while the little guys pay the load of the strict rules.
In the case of the planning board- one poster is right, they cannot force a non-conforming use of a property to be changed. But if that applicant is applying for an intensification (by subtraction, in this case) of that non-conforming use and is seeking to re-route traffic, then it must be scrutinized much more than the PB is currently doing.
The real problem is that the Sweetwater application has been a railroading strategy from the beginning and they have what some PB board members want. This is evidenced by misrepresenting the plans at an event for the locals, falsely stating that the property is in the VC zone when it is mostly in Residential zone, changing the time of the orignal meeting after public notice from 7:30 to 5 pm (when most notified could not attend nor submit letters) with minimal (few day) re-notice, refusung, despite professional reviews requests, to appropriately list the zones on their site maps, etc. Ironically, this is exactly how this lot was made a parking lot to begin with. In 1968 a small bank submitted a letter to the PB (no record of maps, etc.) requesting to make their back property more parking. Of no suprise, none of the people who were supposedly notified (no letter on record) contested. But remember that Maplewood was a row for migrants workers who were just around that time starting to buy their own homes on the street and most were of African American decent. Then, 4 short years later, the bank expanded the size of their business, then again in the 80's.
Now, here in 2010, the applicants seek to intensify (via subtraction via the home) the non-conforming commercial use of this lot in a residential area. They intend to also re-route traffic for the lot to make Maplewood the back alley because, due to the size of the home and likely not wanting a driveway next to it, the ingress and egress "cannot fit" on Main- playing that these are mutually exclusive.
Well, we, the "back streeters" are not going to be taken advantage of to accomodate this grand plan.
This is really a case for the zoning, not the planning board.
Since this justice cannot be found via these volunteers who laugh at the people to promote their own agendas/ideas/whatever you want to call them and who will not listen to the people, representation has been retained and you will see that via notice today or tomorrow. Since we, unlike the applicant, have done our homework, we are confident and preparred to appeal to a court outside of this small town fiasco if necessary for justice. We will have a fair hearing somewhere and have rules and proper process followed. No railroading on our watch. Not today.
This is a great post except for one line,"...then refuse to listen to ALL residents." any comment using the word ALL is ususally wrong, but in this case demonstrably wrong. In fact I would argue the exact opposite.
In most cases the TC and boards are too easily swayed by the group of people who are in the room at the time. We have had issues take years to resolve because of a group of organized vocal citizens.
In this case, I basically agree with you. I think a lane should go into that parking lot from main street. But I do not think our committees and volunteers are self interested entities who do no listen to citizens. In fact, I think the way to best influence your case is to have conversations with people on the boards, commissions, and TC. It has been my experience that they are more than willing to listen and discuss their reasoning. I think the people that accuse them of corruption on anonymous boards are actually harming your cause. Good Luck.
Ok, let me restate to "hear the points of view of ALL residents." you're right, all were listened to, it is just that minds were obviously made up in advance which was evidenced by defense of the applicant's plan by the PB at every turn. In one incident, a PB member actually changed facts presented by the applicant (check the recordings- we will) to help the applicants case!! (by stating a reduction in the amount of on site employees the applicant stated from 25 to 15). Between this and laughing at our concerns, how else is the community supposed to respond?? I noticed the Township Committee meeting was a totally different environment where resident's were treated with respect and their concerns heard freely. This dramatically contracts the PB attitude. I do not want enimies, but this is just the way it was and we are not accepting it.
Posted: Mon, Aug 9 2010, 1:16 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Sweetwater Construction (a.k.a. Old PNC Bank)
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
I am the one who started the criticism of the Planning and HPAC boards here. I did not intend to infer some masterminded "plots", I think it is more accurate to say that the board members look out for their own self interests first (then hide behind "bad judgement")and use primarily their own undertsanding of what is best for the town (and refuse to listen to ALL of the residents).
In the case of HPAC, they certainly allow some deviations of their rules to slide with the appropriate bargaining chips or professional power while the little guys pay the load of the strict rules.
In the case of the planning board- one poster is right, they cannot force a non-conforming use of a property to be changed. But if that applicant is applying for an intensification (by subtraction, in this case) of that non-conforming use and is seeking to re-route traffic, then it must be scrutinized much more than the PB is currently doing.
The real problem is that the Sweetwater application has been a railroading strategy from the beginning and they have what some PB board members want. This is evidenced by misrepresenting the plans at an event for the locals, falsely stating that the property is in the VC zone when it is mostly in Residential zone, changing the time of the orignal meeting after public notice from 7:30 to 5 pm (when most notified could not attend nor submit letters) with minimal (few day) re-notice, refusung, despite professional reviews requests, to appropriately list the zones on their site maps, etc. Ironically, this is exactly how this lot was made a parking lot to begin with. In 1968 a small bank submitted a letter to the PB (no record of maps, etc.) requesting to make their back property more parking. Of no suprise, none of the people who were supposedly notified (no letter on record) contested. But remember that Maplewood was a row for migrants workers who were just around that time starting to buy their own homes on the street and most were of African American decent. Then, 4 short years later, the bank expanded the size of their business, then again in the 80's.
Now, here in 2010, the applicants seek to intensify (via subtraction via the home) the non-conforming commercial use of this lot in a residential area. They intend to also re-route traffic for the lot to make Maplewood the back alley because, due to the size of the home and likely not wanting a driveway next to it, the ingress and egress "cannot fit" on Main- playing that these are mutually exclusive.
Well, we, the "back streeters" are not going to be taken advantage of to accomodate this grand plan.
This is really a case for the zoning, not the planning board.
Since this justice cannot be found via these volunteers who laugh at the people to promote their own agendas/ideas/whatever you want to call them and who will not listen to the people, representation has been retained and you will see that via notice today or tomorrow. Since we, unlike the applicant, have done our homework, we are confident and preparred to appeal to a court outside of this small town fiasco if necessary for justice. We will have a fair hearing somewhere and have rules and proper process followed. No railroading on our watch. Not today.
This is a great post except for one line,"...then refuse to listen to ALL residents." any comment using the word ALL is ususally wrong, but in this case demonstrably wrong. In fact I would argue the exact opposite.
In most cases the TC and boards are too easily swayed by the group of people who are in the room at the time. We have had issues take years to resolve because of a group of organized vocal citizens.
In this case, I basically agree with you. I think a lane should go into that parking lot from main street. But I do not think our committees and volunteers are self interested entities who do no listen to citizens. In fact, I think the way to best influence your case is to have conversations with people on the boards, commissions, and TC. It has been my experience that they are more than willing to listen and discuss their reasoning. I think the people that accuse them of corruption on anonymous boards are actually harming your cause. Good Luck.
I was at the meeting and agree 100% with the last poster's response to you. One other thing, a "lane should go into that parking lot from Main street?" With a barracade that the owners control? No thanks. This still makes Maplewood the primary access. We are not interested in this fake compromise. Our professional response to follow shortly.
Posted: Mon, Aug 9 2010, 1:58 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Sweetwater Construction (a.k.a. Old PNC Bank)
time for the posters to get off their computers and actually go look at the plans.
the current plans from the Witts call for a one lane access from main street to the parking at the rear, and dedicated parking in their own lot for the maplewood neighbors. these plans have been on file for a few weeks now.
These changes are pretty neighborly, i would say. But, I am sure that some people will still want to whine.
Posted: Mon, Aug 9 2010, 2:05 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Sweetwater Construction (a.k.a. Old PNC Bank)
guest17 wrote:
time for the posters to get off their computers and actually go look at the plans.
the current plans from the Witts call for a one lane access from main street to the parking at the rear, and dedicated parking in their own lot for the maplewood neighbors. these plans have been on file for a few weeks now.
These changes are pretty neighborly, i would say. But, I am sure that some people will still want to whine.
Posted: Mon, Aug 9 2010, 4:53 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Sweetwater Construction (a.k.a. Old PNC Bank)
Guest wrote:
Before I insult you, let us make sure were talking about the same thing. Do you think it was a conflict of interest that his firm got a contract to design the school gym years after his wife had served on the board of Education. That seems to be the conflict inferred here. If that is what you are referring to you are correct, you don't know what a conflict is.
Posted: Mon, Aug 9 2010, 5:13 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Sweetwater Construction (a.k.a. Old PNC Bank)
Guest wrote:
Will Blue Rooster customers be allowed to use that lot?
Has anyone else heard that the Blue Rooster is purchasing the water company property on Maplewood. Do you think that it will be Rooster parking? I did overhear talk that the Rooster was looking for a house where they could do food preparation - allowing even more seating space at the Main Street location.
We should all be proud of the Blue Roster's success!
Posted: Mon, Aug 9 2010, 5:36 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Sweetwater Construction (a.k.a. Old PNC Bank)
Guest wrote:
Before I insult you, let us make sure were talking about the same thing. Do you think it was a conflict of interest that his firm got a contract to design the school gym years after his wife had served on the board of Education. That seems to be the conflict inferred here. If that is what you are referring to you are correct, you don't know what a conflict is.
Wouldn't that depend on whether the wife removed herself from the debate and voting on the matter? In my experience almost every local contractor and service provider knows other people on the various committees, boards, etc. around here. It is unrealistic and unfair for someone to be excluded from potential business based solely on a relationship, nor is that typically the case for other municalities, states, etc. Typically what is expected per ethics guidelines is that any potential reliationship be declared to those voting on the issue and that the person with a conflict remove themselves from the actual vote.
I have no knowledge of what was done in this case.
Posted: Mon, Aug 9 2010, 5:49 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Sweetwater Construction (a.k.a. Old PNC Bank)
Just to add one bit of legality here. Any contractor paid more than 17,500 for a job has to submitted a bid. The township including the school board must advertise and accept the lowest bid. So regardless of if someone wants a job or not the only way they can get the job is by submitting the low bid.
I know a few people in town were upset that they lost business or did not get business because of the bid process.
Posted: Mon, Aug 9 2010, 5:59 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Sweetwater Construction (a.k.a. Old PNC Bank)
Guest 3 wrote:
Guest wrote:
Will Blue Rooster customers be allowed to use that lot?
Has anyone else heard that the Blue Rooster is purchasing the water company property on Maplewood. Do you think that it will be Rooster parking? I did overhear talk that the Rooster was looking for a house where they could do food preparation - allowing even more seating space at the Main Street location.
We should all be proud of the Blue Roster's success!
All of this worry over Blue Rooster parking is really getting out of hand. It really only effects Main street and Scott Ave. Once Cranberries reopens on Aug 30 a lot of the business will go back to see the new store. (near Dey Rd.). Then things should get back to normal in time for the school rush.
Posted: Mon, Aug 9 2010, 10:27 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Sweetwater Construction (a.k.a. Old PNC Bank)
guest17 wrote:
time for the posters to get off their computers and actually go look at the plans.
the current plans from the Witts call for a one lane access from main street to the parking at the rear, and dedicated parking in their own lot for the maplewood neighbors. these plans have been on file for a few weeks now.
These changes are pretty neighborly, i would say. But, I am sure that some people will still want to whine.
These plans have CHANGED, they do not want the access from Main Street, that is what all of these discussions are about. And now since you've seen them what do you think?
Posted: Tue, Aug 10 2010, 5:45 am EDT Post subject: Re: Sweetwater Construction (a.k.a. Old PNC Bank)
[quote="Guest"]
guest17 wrote:
These plans have CHANGED, they do not want the access from Main Street, that is what all of these discussions are about. And now since you've seen them what do you think?
Let's get it right...the plans have changed. They call for Main St. entrance and some neighborhood parking spaces. They also add some Main St. parking places. 2 more can be added when the US mail box is removed.
The parking lot will be landscaped and trees will be added at the curb.
For those of us that live here, it will be much more attractive.
And like the earlier posters, I think this is pretty neighborly.
Posted: Tue, Aug 10 2010, 7:49 am EDT Post subject: Re: Sweetwater Construction (a.k.a. Old PNC Bank)
Guest wrote:
I was at the meeting and agree 100% with the last poster's response to you. One other thing, a "lane should go into that parking lot from Main street?" With a barracade that the owners control? No thanks. This still makes Maplewood the primary access. We are not interested in this fake compromise. Our professional response to follow shortly.
Ok, maybe the new changes say they will keep a front entrance but now with a barricade the owners control? How long do you think it will take before that is permanently closed? Not neighborly at all, just like the "neighbors" who control Cole's alley at Maplewood with their barricaded driveway. No thanks.
And throwing Maplewood residents some parking spaces in their lot is also a transparent, half-hearted attempt to get what they want.
